Knights of St. John v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knights of St. John v. State Liquor Authority

27 A.D.2d 888, 278 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 888 (Knights of St. John v. 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

Knights of St. John v. State Liquor Authority, 27 A.D.2d 888, 278 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term which, in a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, (1) annulled a determination of the State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a change in its class of license from club beer license to club liquor license and (2) directed that said determination be amended to provide that petitioner is entitled to such change in class of license and that said application be acted upon accordingly. Special Term correctly held that Matter of Marchi’s Rest. v. Hostetter (21 A D 2d 214, affd. 15 N Y 2d 827) is dispositive of the issue. Appellant urges that, if issued, the license applied for would be a new license and not a “renewal” license. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 64, subd. 7.) Neither, in appellant’s view, would it be a “ step-up ” in the classification of the same license, as the local board termed it. Thus, appellant’s argument is that which it urged unsuccessfully in Marchi’s (supra) except as it now advances the equally tenuous theory that what was held there with reference to the wine and liquor classifications is not applicable here to the beer and liquor classifications. Even the incidental distinction attempted to be made by appellant by its reference to a “non-prohibited beer license” is without substance. (See Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 55, subd. 3, as amd. by L. 1964, ch. 531, eff. June 1, 1964; petitioner’s beer license being in effect then and thereafter.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. ‘Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gibson, P. J'.

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

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term which, in a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, (1) annulled a determination of the State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a change in its class of license from club beer license to club liquor license and (2) directed that said determination be amended to provide that petitioner is entitled to such change in class of license and that said application be acted upon accordingly. Special Term correctly held that Matter of Marchi’s Rest. v. Hostetter (21 A D 2d 214, affd. 15 N Y 2d 827) is dispositive of the issue. Appellant urges that, if issued, the license applied for would be a new license and not a “renewal” license. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 64, subd. 7.) Neither, in appellant’s view, would it be a “ step-up ” in the classification of the same license, as the local board termed it. Thus, appellant’s argument is that which it urged unsuccessfully in Marchi’s (supra) except as it now advances the equally tenuous theory that what was held there with reference to the wine and liquor classifications is not applicable here to the beer and liquor classifications. Even the incidental distinction attempted to be made by appellant by its reference to a “non-prohibited beer license” is without substance. (See Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 55, subd. 3, as amd. by L. 1964, ch. 531, eff. June 1, 1964; petitioner’s beer license being in effect then and thereafter.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. ‘Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gibson, P. J'.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 888, 278 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knights-of-st-john-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1967.