Kismet Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kismet Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

7 A.D.2d 967, 183 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9780

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 967 (Kismet Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kismet Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 7 A.D.2d 967, 183 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination and order of State Liquor Authority unanimously confirmed in all respects, with costs to respondent. On this record, the warning letters were not admissible in the main proceeding unless they had been supported by proof of the incidents to which they referred. In considering punishment, however, the notices, with proof of no objection or correction by the licensee, could have been considered. Nevertheless, on the whole record, without the warning letters, there is ample evidence to support the determination and the penalty imposed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., M. M. Frank, Yalente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination and order of State Liquor Authority unanimously confirmed in all respects, with costs to respondent. On this record, the warning letters were not admissible in the main proceeding unless they had been supported by proof of the incidents to which they referred. In considering punishment, however, the notices, with proof of no objection or correction by the licensee, could have been considered. Nevertheless, on the whole record, without the warning letters, there is ample evidence to support the determination and the penalty imposed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., M. M. Frank, Yalente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 967, 183 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kismet-restaurant-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1959.