MDM Tavern v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MDM Tavern v. State Liquor Authority

190 A.D.2d 535

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 535 (MDM Tavern v. State Liquor Authority) 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

MDM Tavern v. State Liquor Authority, 190 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, dated March 6, 1992, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 30 days and directed forfeiture of $1,000 bond, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.], entered on or about June 1, 1992), is dismissed, without costs.

Two diametrically opposed accounts of what transpired in petitioner’s tavern were presented at the hearing. Respondent’s witnesses testified that petitioner’s bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage person, in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), while petitioner’s witnesses stated that no such sale ever took place. We find no basis to disturb either the credibility findings of the Administrative Law Judge or the determination (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The same is true with respect to the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.

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

— Determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, dated March 6, 1992, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 30 days and directed forfeiture of $1,000 bond, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.], entered on or about June 1, 1992), is dismissed, without costs.

Two diametrically opposed accounts of what transpired in petitioner’s tavern were presented at the hearing. Respondent’s witnesses testified that petitioner’s bartender sold an alcoholic beverage to an underage person, in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), while petitioner’s witnesses stated that no such sale ever took place. We find no basis to disturb either the credibility findings of the Administrative Law Judge or the determination (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The same is true with respect to the penalty imposed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mdm-tavern-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack