Mercurio v. New York State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals

Mercurio v. New York State Liquor Authority

403 N.E.2d 962, 49 N.Y.2d 815, 426 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2167

DecidedMarch 18, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 403 N.E.2d 962 (Mercurio v. New York State Liquor Authority) 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

Mercurio v. New York State Liquor Authority, 403 N.E.2d 962, 49 N.Y.2d 815, 426 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2167 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the authority reinstated, with costs.

Petitioner argues that the authority’s disapproval of her application was premised solely and, hence, impermissibly, on the fact of her marriage to one whom the authority considered an unacceptable licensee. There was more here, however, including petitioner’s admitted inexperience in the management of such an enterprise and her avowed intention not to terminate her present employment, which meant that she frequently would not be present during operating hours. Upon this record, taken as a whole, including the fact the husband had previously been found to have operated a licensed establishment as an undisclosed principal, there appearing a rea[817]*817sonable basis to support the authority’s considered judgment that petitioner would not be the sole party in interest in the premises or the applied for license, its action cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious (Matter of Wager v State Liq. Auth., 4 NY2d 465, 468; see Matter of Intino v Hostetter, 29 AD2d 625; Alcohol Beverage Control Law, §§ 2, 17).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum: Since I cannot concur in the majority’s blithe acceptance of a determination premised solely upon the abhorrent concept of guilt by association, I vote to affirm the judgment appealed from for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (70 AD2d 953).

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the determination of the authority reinstated, with costs.

Petitioner argues that the authority’s disapproval of her application was premised solely and, hence, impermissibly, on the fact of her marriage to one whom the authority considered an unacceptable licensee. There was more here, however, including petitioner’s admitted inexperience in the management of such an enterprise and her avowed intention not to terminate her present employment, which meant that she frequently would not be present during operating hours. Upon this record, taken as a whole, including the fact the husband had previously been found to have operated a licensed establishment as an undisclosed principal, there appearing a rea[817]*817sonable basis to support the authority’s considered judgment that petitioner would not be the sole party in interest in the premises or the applied for license, its action cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious (Matter of Wager v State Liq. Auth., 4 NY2d 465, 468; see Matter of Intino v Hostetter, 29 AD2d 625; Alcohol Beverage Control Law, §§ 2, 17).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum: Since I cannot concur in the majority’s blithe acceptance of a determination premised solely upon the abhorrent concept of guilt by association, I vote to affirm the judgment appealed from for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (70 AD2d 953).

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 N.E.2d 962, 49 N.Y.2d 815, 426 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercurio-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack