Korina Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Korina Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

267 A.D.2d 38, 700 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12695

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 3, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days and imposed a $1,500 penalty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By entering its “no contest” plea, petitioner waived its right to a review of the facts upon which the punishment was imposed (9 NYCRR 54.2; Matter of Kufs v State of N. Y. Liq. Auth., 224 AD2d 974; Matter of Barotti v New York State Liq. Auth., 82 AD2d 1004, 1005). The penalty imposed was appropriate, notwithstanding the IAS Court’s partial annulment [39] of the challenged determination (see, Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v New York State Liq. Auth., 228 AD2d 172). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 3, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days and imposed a $1,500 penalty, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By entering its “no contest” plea, petitioner waived its right to a review of the facts upon which the punishment was imposed (9 NYCRR 54.2; Matter of Kufs v State of N. Y. Liq. Auth., 224 AD2d 974; Matter of Barotti v New York State Liq. Auth., 82 AD2d 1004, 1005). The penalty imposed was appropriate, notwithstanding the IAS Court’s partial annulment [39] of the challenged determination (see, Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v New York State Liq. Auth., 228 AD2d 172). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom, Mazzarelli and Wallach, JJ.

Korina Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 267 A.D.2d 38, 700 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 38 (Korina Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related