Lotito & Lucchi, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lotito & Lucchi, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

102 A.D.2d 853, 476 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19046

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 11, 1984·Published

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, New York State Liquor Authority, dated August 22, 1983, which found petitioner guilty of improper conduct (9 [854]*854NYCRR 53.1 [n]) and supplying a false material statement on its license renewal application (9 NYCRR 53.1 [b]) and imposed a suspension of its license for 30 days, 15 days forthwith and 15 days deferred, plus forfeiture of a $1,500 bond. I Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. $ We find that respondent’s determination that petitioner was guilty of improper conduct (i.e., menacing) and supplying a false material statement was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was a reasonable exercise of its discretion (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, New York State Liquor Authority, dated August 22, 1983, which found petitioner guilty of improper conduct (9 [854]*854NYCRR 53.1 [n]) and supplying a false material statement on its license renewal application (9 NYCRR 53.1 [b]) and imposed a suspension of its license for 30 days, 15 days forthwith and 15 days deferred, plus forfeiture of a $1,500 bond. I Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. $ We find that respondent’s determination that petitioner was guilty of improper conduct (i.e., menacing) and supplying a false material statement was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was a reasonable exercise of its discretion (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Lotito & Lucchi, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 102 A.D.2d 853, 476 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

102 A.D.2d 853 (Lotito & Lucchi, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related