Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

94 A.D.2d 744, 462 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18196

This text of 94 A.D.2d 744 (Nycrest Corp. 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
Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 94 A.D.2d 744, 462 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated March 3, 1982 and made after a hearing, which found that petitioner had violated subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and suspended its grocery beer license for 20 days. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, in that it had sold beer to a minor, was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland, 282 NY 256). In addition, the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer, adopted by the respondent, did not indicate that the hearing officer was materially influenced by the hearsay statements admitted at trial and, as such, the hearsay did not have the effect of depriving petitioner of the fair and proper hearing to which it was entitled (see Matter of Nycrest Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 81 AD2d 867). Finally, the hearing officer’s decision not to allow petitioner to cross-examine the father of the minor as to a collateral matter to which his son had testified, did not deprive petitioner of a fair hearing inasmuch as petitioner had been permitted to cross-examine the minor with respect to the same issue (cf. Matter of245 Elmwood Ave. v New York State Liq. Auth., 14 AD2d 393, affd 11 NY2d 980; Matter of Maniccia v State Liq. Auth., 3 AD2d 798). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

MATTER OF 245 ELMWOOD AVE., INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.
11 N.Y.2d 980 (New York Court of Appeals, 1962)
Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland
26 N.E.2d 247 (New York Court of Appeals, 1940)
300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
379 N.E.2d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Maniccia v. State Liquor Authority
3 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
245 Elmwood Avenue, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
14 A.D.2d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority
81 A.D.2d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.2d 744, 462 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nycrest-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1983.