Matter of Platinum Pleasures v. New York State Liq. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Platinum Pleasures v. New York State Liq. Auth.

122 A.D.3d 411, 996 N.Y.S.2d 23

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2014

Docket13401 101458/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 411 (Matter of Platinum Pleasures v. New York State Liq. Auth.) 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

Matter of Platinum Pleasures v. New York State Liq. Auth., 122 A.D.3d 411, 996 N.Y.S.2d 23 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*412 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered March 3, 2014, denying the petition to annul respondent New York State Liquor Authority’s determination, dated July 1, 2013, issued on default, to revoke petitioner’s on-premises liquor license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the determination vacated, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the underlying charges.

Regardless of whether petitioner defaulted under 9 NYCRR 54.2, it established that the revocation order should be vacated because it had a reasonable excuse for the alleged default and a meritorious defense. Petitioner’s default was excusable because its former counsel explained that he had a regular custom of emailing respondent’s counsel when conducting business, that his communications had never been rejected before, that the email of the notice of appearance and not-guilty plea was never rejected by respondent, and that his repeated requests before the default was issued, inquiring as to the status of the pending administrative proceeding, went unanswered. Further, petitioner made a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense to the charges, as the alleged misconduct occurred on the public sidewalk outside the licensed premises (see 9 NYCRR 48.2; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 [6]; Matter of JA Rocks Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 663, 663 [1st Dept 2007]).

We note that upon learning of the revocation order, petitioner’s former counsel promptly requested that respondent vacate the finding, and petitioner timely commenced the instant article 78 proceeding.

Given the foregoing determination, we need not reach petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, DeGrasse and Clark, JJ.

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

*412 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander W Hunter, Jr., J.), entered March 3, 2014, denying the petition to annul respondent New York State Liquor Authority’s determination, dated July 1, 2013, issued on default, to revoke petitioner’s on-premises liquor license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the determination vacated, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the underlying charges.

Regardless of whether petitioner defaulted under 9 NYCRR 54.2, it established that the revocation order should be vacated because it had a reasonable excuse for the alleged default and a meritorious defense. Petitioner’s default was excusable because its former counsel explained that he had a regular custom of emailing respondent’s counsel when conducting business, that his communications had never been rejected before, that the email of the notice of appearance and not-guilty plea was never rejected by respondent, and that his repeated requests before the default was issued, inquiring as to the status of the pending administrative proceeding, went unanswered. Further, petitioner made a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense to the charges, as the alleged misconduct occurred on the public sidewalk outside the licensed premises (see 9 NYCRR 48.2; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 [6]; Matter of JA Rocks Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 663, 663 [1st Dept 2007]).

We note that upon learning of the revocation order, petitioner’s former counsel promptly requested that respondent vacate the finding, and petitioner timely commenced the instant article 78 proceeding.

Given the foregoing determination, we need not reach petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, DeGrasse and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 411, 996 N.Y.S.2d 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-platinum-pleasures-v-new-york-state-liq-auth-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack