Lynch's Builders Restaurant, Inc. v. O'Connell

New York Court of Appeals

Lynch's Builders Restaurant, Inc. v. O'Connell

103 N.E.2d 531, 303 N.Y. 408, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 803

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 24, 1952·Published·Cited by 27 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In a proceeding brought under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of an administrative agency, it is sufficient that the record contain “ substantial evidence ” to support it. (See, e.g., Matter of Humphrey v. State Ins. Fund, 298 N. Y. 327, 331-332; Matter of Miller v. Kling, 291 N. Y. 65, 69.) In the case before us, ample proof was adduced before the State Liquor Authority — and it was not rendered less effective or less probative because the criminal charge based upon some of it had been dismissed in a magistrate’s court (see Matter of Cohen v. Board of Regents, 299 N. Y. 582, affg. 274 App. Div. 952; Schindler v. Royal Ins. Co., 258 N. Y. 310, 312-313; Matter of Garvey v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 766) —to warrant the Authority (1) in finding that the licensee actually knew or should have known, had reasonable diligence been exercised, that homosexual activities were being carried on in its premises, and (2) in concluding that such licensee had suffered or permitted the premises to become “ disorderly ” in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. (See Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150, 153.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In a proceeding brought under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of an administrative agency, it is sufficient that the record contain “ substantial evidence ” to support it. (See, e.g., Matter of Humphrey v. State Ins. Fund, 298 N. Y. 327, 331-332; Matter of Miller v. Kling, 291 N. Y. 65, 69.) In the case before us, ample proof was adduced before the State Liquor Authority — and it was not rendered less effective or less probative because the criminal charge based upon some of it had been dismissed in a magistrate’s court (see Matter of Cohen v. Board of Regents, 299 N. Y. 582, affg. 274 App. Div. 952; Schindler v. Royal Ins. Co., 258 N. Y. 310, 312-313; Matter of Garvey v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 766) —to warrant the Authority (1) in finding that the licensee actually knew or should have known, had reasonable diligence been exercised, that homosexual activities were being carried on in its premises, and (2) in concluding that such licensee had suffered or permitted the premises to become “ disorderly ” in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. (See Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150, 153.)

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Lynch's Builders Restaurant, Inc. v. O'Connell, 103 N.E.2d 531, 303 N.Y. 408, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 803 (N.Y. 1952).

Pincite

103 N.E.2d 531 (Lynch's Builders Restaurant, Inc. v. O'Connell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related