Magee v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Magee v. New York State Liquor Authority

13 A.D.2d 649, 214 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11265

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.2d 649 (Magee 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

Magee v. New York State Liquor Authority, 13 A.D.2d 649, 214 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending the restaurant liquor license of the petitioner for a period of 10 days, unanimously annulled, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements' to the petitioner. There is no substantial evidence of a competent, probative force to support the determination of the Authority that the petitioner sold,, delivered or gave away, or permitted to be sold, delivered or given away alcoholic beverages to the alleged minor under the age of 18 years. The determination rests solely on hearsay, uncorroborated by any common-law evidence, and therefore it must be set aside as not properly supported and as arbitrary. (Matter of Stammer v. Board of Regents, 287 N. Y. 359, 365; Matter of Reynolds v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 App. Div. [650]*650388, 390; Matter of Yates v. Mulrooney, 245 App. Div. 146, 149; New York State Labor Relations Bd. v. Shattuck Co., 260 App. Div. 315, 317.) Concur —McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending the restaurant liquor license of the petitioner for a period of 10 days, unanimously annulled, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements' to the petitioner. There is no substantial evidence of a competent, probative force to support the determination of the Authority that the petitioner sold,, delivered or gave away, or permitted to be sold, delivered or given away alcoholic beverages to the alleged minor under the age of 18 years. The determination rests solely on hearsay, uncorroborated by any common-law evidence, and therefore it must be set aside as not properly supported and as arbitrary. (Matter of Stammer v. Board of Regents, 287 N. Y. 359, 365; Matter of Reynolds v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 276 App. Div. [650]*650388, 390; Matter of Yates v. Mulrooney, 245 App. Div. 146, 149; New York State Labor Relations Bd. v. Shattuck Co., 260 App. Div. 315, 317.) Concur —McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 649, 214 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magee-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack