Lily's Food Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

269 A.D.2d 263, 703 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1574

This text of 269 A.D.2d 263 (Lily's Food Corp. v. New York 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
Lily's Food Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 269 A.D.2d 263, 703 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority dated on or about March 5, 1999, revoking petitioner’s license and forfeiting its license bond in the sum of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William Wetzel, J.], entered May 5, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent authority’s finding that petitioner had ceased to operate its premises within the contemplation of its off-premises beer license was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony as to the quantity of beer on display in the store, and invoices of a wholesale beer distributor reflecting [264]*264delivery of 243 cases of beer to petitioner in a one-month period, the value of which, at 50 cents a beer, exceeded 25 percent of the value of the total store inventory, the ceiling placed by respondent upon petitioner’s beer inventory as a condition of issuing petitioner’s off-premises beer license (see, Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland, 282 NY 256). Respondent, in promulgating the inventory requirement, did not exceed its powers since such requirement was neither irrational nor unreasonable (see, Matter of Best v New York State Liq. Auth., 59 NY2d 906, revg 89 AD2d 893 for reasons stated in dissenting mem of Lazer, J., at 893-894). Finally, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be “ ‘ “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

MATTER OF BEST v. New York State Liquor Auth.
453 N.E.2d 518 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland
26 N.E.2d 247 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)
Best v. New York State Liquor Authority
89 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 263, 703 N.Y.S.2d 39, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lilys-food-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2000.