Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell

Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell

107 N.E.2d 507, 304 N.Y. 396, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 755
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 15, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 107 N.E.2d 507 (Matter of Radigan v. O'Connell) 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 Radigan v. O'Connell, 107 N.E.2d 507, 304 N.Y. 396, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 755 (N.Y. 1952).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the Appellate Division that there is no substantial evidence to support the determination of the State Liquor Authority that the licensee has ceased to conduct a bona fide restaurant in violation of section 118 of *399 the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Under our view of the record, there is substantial evidence to support the determination of the State Liquor Authority that the licensee suffered or permitted the sale of an alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person in violation of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (Matter of Avon Bar & Grill v. O’Connell, 301 N. Y. 150). The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Liquor Authority on a controverted question of fact (Matter of Stork Restaurant v. Boland, 282 N. Y. 256). It is when the circumstances admit of only one inference that the court may decide as a matter of law what inference should be drawn (Matter of Rumsey Mfg. Co. [Corsi], 296 N. Y. 113; Matter of Bolani v. O’Connell, 296 N. Y. 871; Matter of Menick v. Bruckman, 279 N. Y. 795, revg. 255 App. Div. 810).

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed insofar as it reverses and annuls the determination of the State Liquor Authority that the licensee has ceased to conduct a bona fide restaurant (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 118), and should be reversed insofar as it annuls the determination of the State Liquor Authority that the licensee suffered or permitted the sale of an alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 65), and the determination of the State Liquor Authority should be reinstated as to that charge. It is further ordered that the matter be and it hereby is remitted to the State Liquor Authority for the purpose of fixing the penalty, if any, for such single offense.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with the opinion herein, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur; Conway, J., not sitting.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Matter of Kelly v. County of Dutchess
2019 NY Slip Op 7582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Guidal v. Board of Trustees
275 A.D.2d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Wesarg v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
246 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Rivera v. New York City Fire Department
232 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Jung v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
228 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hacker v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
228 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Sorrenti v. New York City Fire Department
228 A.D.2d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Regan v. Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department Article 1-B Pension Fund
226 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Callahan v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
226 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hine v. Rivera
226 A.D.2d 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Coleman v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
224 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hodges v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
203 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re the Estate of Shaw
202 A.D.2d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Flynn v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department
201 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Irelands Own, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
165 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Irvington Enterprises, Inc. v. Duffy
155 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Best v. New York State Liquor Authority
89 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Nero's Pad, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
54 A.D.2d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Streber v. State of New York Liquor Authority
47 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Mendillo v. State Liquor Authority
31 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 N.E.2d 507, 304 N.Y. 396, 1952 N.Y. LEXIS 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-radigan-v-oconnell-ny-1952.