MATTER OF JDH REST., INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF JDH REST., INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.

236 N.E.2d 159, 21 N.Y.2d 846, 288 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1592

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 N.E.2d 159 (MATTER OF JDH REST., 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 JDH REST., INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 236 N.E.2d 159, 21 N.Y.2d 846, 288 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1592 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: Because a cancellation rather than a revocation of license is involved petitioner is now presumably entitled to apply for a new license (see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 126, subd. 5). Should such application be made the Authority would, of course, be entitled to consider petitioner’s misguided reliance on the absence of specific legislative prohibitions at the time of the practices condemned by it and to weigh the sincerity of petitioner’s protestations that it is prepared to abide by the applicable law.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

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

Order affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: Because a cancellation rather than a revocation of license is involved petitioner is now presumably entitled to apply for a new license (see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 126, subd. 5). Should such application be made the Authority would, of course, be entitled to consider petitioner’s misguided reliance on the absence of specific legislative prohibitions at the time of the practices condemned by it and to weigh the sincerity of petitioner’s protestations that it is prepared to abide by the applicable law.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 N.E.2d 159, 21 N.Y.2d 846, 288 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jdh-rest-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-auth-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack