Levine v. New York State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Levine v. New York State Liquor Authority

245 N.E.2d 804, 23 N.Y.2d 863, 298 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1639

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 245 N.E.2d 804 (Levine 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

Levine v. New York State Liquor Authority, 245 N.E.2d 804, 23 N.Y.2d 863, 298 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1639 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. On the original argument of this appeal various documents submitted to the Authority subsequent to its determination were relied upon by petitioner-appellant. The Authority explains that the shortness of time in which the appeal was brought on prevented it from taking the necessary action to prevent consideration of the improperly included matter. Reliance on these documents was not proper, since a court’s review of administrative action is limited to the record made before the Authority. Nevertheless, when the material not before the Authority at the time of decision is eliminated, the proper record was sufficient to establish that the agency’s determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious, especially in light of the fact that there was then the imminent prospect of a large housing project in the vicinity. Hence, the standards of public convenience and advantage have been satisfied by the determination (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 984; see, also, Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 379).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur in memorandum; Judges Scileppi and Keating dissent and vote to reverse.

Upon reargument: Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. On the original argument of this appeal various documents submitted to the Authority subsequent to its determination were relied upon by petitioner-appellant. The Authority explains that the shortness of time in which the appeal was brought on prevented it from taking the necessary action to prevent consideration of the improperly included matter. Reliance on these documents was not proper, since a court’s review of administrative action is limited to the record made before the Authority. Nevertheless, when the material not before the Authority at the time of decision is eliminated, the proper record was sufficient to establish that the agency’s determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious, especially in light of the fact that there was then the imminent prospect of a large housing project in the vicinity. Hence, the standards of public convenience and advantage have been satisfied by the determination (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 984; see, also, Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 379).

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Bergan, Breitel and Jasen concur in memorandum; Judges Scileppi and Keating dissent and vote to reverse.

Upon reargument: Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 N.E.2d 804, 23 N.Y.2d 863, 298 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-ny-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack