Mead-Malone, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead-Malone, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

40 A.D.2d 632, 333 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106

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

DecidedJune 14, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 632 (Mead-Malone, Inc. v. New York 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

Mead-Malone, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 40 A.D.2d 632, 333 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Sara-toga County) to review and annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority canceling petitioner’s retail liquor license. The respondent found that petitioner violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law “in that it suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly” by suffering or permitting the trafficking in narcotics and thereupon canceled petitioner’s license. The question of whether a given licensed premises has been disorderly is factual, and thus if the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., 33 A D 2d 954, affd. 27 N Y 2d 676). And “ the disorder involved need not have been known to the licensee to constitute a violation; it is sufficient if the licensee should have known of it ” (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., supra, p. 955; Matter of Becker v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 289; Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566). In our opinion the instant record contains substantial evidence to support the respondent’s finding of guilt. However, we conclude on the evidence pre[633]*633sented that a suspension for six months is more appropriate, and in the exercise of the power vested in this court (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., supra) we accordingly reduce the penalty. Determination modified, on the law, by annulling the revocation and substituting therefor a provision that the license he suspended for a period of six months, and, as so modified, confirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Sweeney, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Sara-toga County) to review and annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority canceling petitioner’s retail liquor license. The respondent found that petitioner violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law “in that it suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly” by suffering or permitting the trafficking in narcotics and thereupon canceled petitioner’s license. The question of whether a given licensed premises has been disorderly is factual, and thus if the respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., 33 A D 2d 954, affd. 27 N Y 2d 676). And “ the disorder involved need not have been known to the licensee to constitute a violation; it is sufficient if the licensee should have known of it ” (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., supra, p. 955; Matter of Becker v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 289; Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566). In our opinion the instant record contains substantial evidence to support the respondent’s finding of guilt. However, we conclude on the evidence pre[633]*633sented that a suspension for six months is more appropriate, and in the exercise of the power vested in this court (Matter of Show Boat of New Lebanon v. State Liq. Auth., supra) we accordingly reduce the penalty. Determination modified, on the law, by annulling the revocation and substituting therefor a provision that the license he suspended for a period of six months, and, as so modified, confirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr., J. P., Greenblott, Sweeney, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 632, 333 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-malone-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack