Matter of Konopka v. Bruckman

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Konopka v. Bruckman

50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 777, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1390

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 N.E.2d 105 (Matter of Konopka v. Bruckman) 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 Konopka v. Bruckman, 50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 777, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1390 (N.Y. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Appellate Division reversed and determination of the State Liquor Authority annulled, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, on the ground that the findings of the Authority are not supported by any substantial evidence. We express no opinion as to the matter of a renewal of the license of the petitioner. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey and Lewis, JJ. Dissenting: Conway and Desmond, JJ., dissent upon the ground that the record discloses circumstances which afforded scope for a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion in the manner which led to the determination of the Authority. (Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464, 469; Matter of Stracquadino v. Dept. of Health, 285 N. Y. 93, 96; Matter of Kasha v. Board of Regents, 290 N. Y. 630, decided March, 1943; Matter of Conomon v. State Liquor Authority, 254 App. Div. 650, affd. 276 N. Y. 591; Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland, 282 N. Y. 256, 275; Matter of Yates, 245 App. Div. 146; People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Board of Supervisors, 251 N. Y. 156, 160, 161; Matter of Fortino, 273 N. Y. 31; Lyman v. Kurtz, 166 N. Y. 274, 279; People v. Hawk, 156 Misc. 870, affd. 268 N. Y. 678; Clement v. Federal Union Surety Co., 122 App. Div. 18; Matter of Clement [Ruehl certificate] 144 App. Div. 156, 157.) Taking no part: Finch, J.

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

Order of Appellate Division reversed and determination of the State Liquor Authority annulled, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division, on the ground that the findings of the Authority are not supported by any substantial evidence. We express no opinion as to the matter of a renewal of the license of the petitioner. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey and Lewis, JJ. Dissenting: Conway and Desmond, JJ., dissent upon the ground that the record discloses circumstances which afforded scope for a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion in the manner which led to the determination of the Authority. (Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464, 469; Matter of Stracquadino v. Dept. of Health, 285 N. Y. 93, 96; Matter of Kasha v. Board of Regents, 290 N. Y. 630, decided March, 1943; Matter of Conomon v. State Liquor Authority, 254 App. Div. 650, affd. 276 N. Y. 591; Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland, 282 N. Y. 256, 275; Matter of Yates, 245 App. Div. 146; People ex rel. Hirschberg v. Board of Supervisors, 251 N. Y. 156, 160, 161; Matter of Fortino, 273 N. Y. 31; Lyman v. Kurtz, 166 N. Y. 274, 279; People v. Hawk, 156 Misc. 870, affd. 268 N. Y. 678; Clement v. Federal Union Surety Co., 122 App. Div. 18; Matter of Clement [Ruehl certificate] 144 App. Div. 156, 157.) Taking no part: Finch, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 777, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-konopka-v-bruckman-ny-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack