Lanzilli Enterprises, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Lanzilli Enterprises, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 733, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1010

DecidedOctober 21, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 276 N.E.2d 228 (Lanzilli Enterprises, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lanzilli Enterprises, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 733, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1010 (N.Y. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term with directions to remand the application to the State Liquor Authority, in the following memorandum: Since the death of Mr. Lanzilli’s son has resulted in a change in circumstances, and since the record before us is exceedingly meagre, the proceeding should be remitted to the Authority for further investigation and consideration of the merits of the application.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Gibson. Judges Breitel and Jasen dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: In denying this application for a restaurant-liquor license, the Authority properly exercised its discretion under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. On the record presented, even if it were meagre, which it is not conceded to be, there is sufficient basis to sustain the Authority’s determination and it should not be disturbed.

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

Order reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term with directions to remand the application to the State Liquor Authority, in the following memorandum: Since the death of Mr. Lanzilli’s son has resulted in a change in circumstances, and since the record before us is exceedingly meagre, the proceeding should be remitted to the Authority for further investigation and consideration of the merits of the application.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Gibson. Judges Breitel and Jasen dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: In denying this application for a restaurant-liquor license, the Authority properly exercised its discretion under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. On the record presented, even if it were meagre, which it is not conceded to be, there is sufficient basis to sustain the Authority’s determination and it should not be disturbed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 N.E.2d 228, 29 N.Y.2d 733, 326 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanzilli-enterprises-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-ny-1971.