Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF C. SCHMIDT & SONS, INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.

MATTER OF C. SCHMIDT & SONS, INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.

417 N.E.2d 570, 52 N.Y.2d 751, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2852
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 16, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 417 N.E.2d 570 (MATTER OF C. SCHMIDT & SONS, INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF C. SCHMIDT & SONS, INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 417 N.E.2d 570, 52 N.Y.2d 751, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2852 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

While it would certainly have been the better practice for the authority explicitly to have spelled out in its determination of December 8, 1978 the fact that it had given consideration to the materials concerning Mr. Pflaumer submitted as part of the request for reconsideration, that fact is implicit in the statement that it had “granted your request for reconsideration of the disapproval”. That the authority adhered to its original determination cannot be held to be an abuse of discretion in light of the relationship of the misdemeanor convictions to the license sought, the more so since section 752 of the Correction Law enacted to prevent unfair discrimination against persons convicted *754 of criminal offenses expressly excepts cases in which “there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought”. Finally, consideration by the authority of information received by its investigators from Rivinia Corporation and F & M Schaefer Corporation but never made available to petitioner did not constitute a denial of due process (Matter of Fink v Cole, 1 NY2d 48).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Matter of Galaxy Bar & Grill Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth.
2017 NY Slip Op 7168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
City Services, Inc. v. Neiman
77 A.D.3d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
333 E. 89 Realty L. L. C. v. New York City Water Board
272 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Alston v. City of New York
270 A.D.2d 3 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Rodgers v. New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services
154 A.D.2d 233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission
141 Misc. 2d 276 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Murphy v. Sise
129 A.D.2d 70 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Markman v. New York State Department of Education
131 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Marra v. City of White Plains
96 A.D.2d 17 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Stewart v. Civil Service Commission
84 A.D.2d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 N.E.2d 570, 52 N.Y.2d 751, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-c-schmidt-sons-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-auth-ny-1980.