Maloney v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maloney v. King Kullen Grocery Co.

266 A.D.2d 517, 698 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 517 (Maloney v. King Kullen Grocery Co.) 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

Maloney v. King Kullen Grocery Co., 266 A.D.2d 517, 698 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from engaging in activity which allegedly violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 2, 1998, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The complaint, which alleged, inter alia, that the defendant’s [518]*518policy of restricting the sale of nonalcoholic beverages in its stores prior to noon on Sunday was contrary to the purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, failed to state any cognizable cause of action and was properly dismissed by the Supreme Court (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Sotomayor v Kaufman, Malchman, Kirby & Squire, 252 AD2d 554; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The defendant’s request for the imposition of a sanction on the plaintiff is denied. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from engaging in activity which allegedly violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 2, 1998, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The complaint, which alleged, inter alia, that the defendant’s [518]*518policy of restricting the sale of nonalcoholic beverages in its stores prior to noon on Sunday was contrary to the purposes of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, failed to state any cognizable cause of action and was properly dismissed by the Supreme Court (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Sotomayor v Kaufman, Malchman, Kirby & Squire, 252 AD2d 554; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The defendant’s request for the imposition of a sanction on the plaintiff is denied. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 517, 698 N.Y.S.2d 553, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-king-kullen-grocery-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack