Kleen Food Store, Inc. v. D'Angelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleen Food Store, Inc. v. D'Angelo

222 A.D.2d 1110, 636 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14226

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1110 (Kleen Food Store, Inc. v. D'Angelo) 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

Kleen Food Store, Inc. v. D'Angelo, 222 A.D.2d 1110, 636 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in modifying the penalty of 15 days license suspension, to be served forthwith, imposed on petitioner for violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1). That penalty is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of 17 Cameron St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 48 NY2d 509, 512; Matter of Players Five v New York State Liq. Auth., 197 AD2d 918). The fact that respondents proposed a less severe sanction in its compromise offer, which petitioner rejected, does not warrant modification of the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Ward v Ambach, 141 AD2d 932, 933; see also, Matter of Empire State Pharm. Socy. v New York State Dept. of Educ., 102 AD2d 964, 965, affd 64 NY2d 942). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in modifying the penalty of 15 days license suspension, to be served forthwith, imposed on petitioner for violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1). That penalty is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of 17 Cameron St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 48 NY2d 509, 512; Matter of Players Five v New York State Liq. Auth., 197 AD2d 918). The fact that respondents proposed a less severe sanction in its compromise offer, which petitioner rejected, does not warrant modification of the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Ward v Ambach, 141 AD2d 932, 933; see also, Matter of Empire State Pharm. Socy. v New York State Dept. of Educ., 102 AD2d 964, 965, affd 64 NY2d 942). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1110, 636 N.Y.S.2d 687, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleen-food-store-inc-v-dangelo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack