Marracino v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marracino v. State Liquor Authority

122 A.D.2d 616, 504 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59902

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 616 (Marracino v. 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

Marracino v. State Liquor Authority, 122 A.D.2d 616, 504 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, and petition granted. Memorandum: Upon review of the record, we find that respondent’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

"A court reviewing the substantiality of the evidence upon which an administrative agency has acted exercises a genuine judicial function and does not confirm a determination simply because it was made by such an agency (Matter of McCormack v National City Bank, 303 NY 5, 8-9). In final analysis, substantial evidence consists of proof within the whole record of such quality and quantity as to generate conviction in and persuade a fair and detached fact finder that, from that proof as a premise, a conclusion or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably — probatively and logically [citations omitted]” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181).

Respondent relied on the very brief testimony of the minor who allegedly purchased the liquor at petitioner’s store. That testimony was refuted by the testimony of petitioner and two employees and by an affidavit of the wife of one of the employees. That proof established that the bearded employee who allegedly made the sale never worked at the store on Saturday nights. While we would ordinarily defer to the agency’s determination of credibility of witnesses, on this record the minor’s testimony does not constitute substantial evidence. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

— Determination unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, and petition granted. Memorandum: Upon review of the record, we find that respondent’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

"A court reviewing the substantiality of the evidence upon which an administrative agency has acted exercises a genuine judicial function and does not confirm a determination simply because it was made by such an agency (Matter of McCormack v National City Bank, 303 NY 5, 8-9). In final analysis, substantial evidence consists of proof within the whole record of such quality and quantity as to generate conviction in and persuade a fair and detached fact finder that, from that proof as a premise, a conclusion or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably — probatively and logically [citations omitted]” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181).

Respondent relied on the very brief testimony of the minor who allegedly purchased the liquor at petitioner’s store. That testimony was refuted by the testimony of petitioner and two employees and by an affidavit of the wife of one of the employees. That proof established that the bearded employee who allegedly made the sale never worked at the store on Saturday nights. While we would ordinarily defer to the agency’s determination of credibility of witnesses, on this record the minor’s testimony does not constitute substantial evidence. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 616, 504 N.Y.S.2d 938, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marracino-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack