Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

109 A.D.2d 799, 486 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47293

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated May 23, 1984, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and suspended its retail beer license for 10 days.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The State Liquor Authority’s determination that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), in that it had sold beer to a minor, was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. The record reveals that petitioner was not deprived of his due process rights and the testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256; Matter of Nycrest Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 96 AD2d 563). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated May 23, 1984, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and suspended its retail beer license for 10 days.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The State Liquor Authority’s determination that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), in that it had sold beer to a minor, was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. The record reveals that petitioner was not deprived of his due process rights and the testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256; Matter of Nycrest Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 96 AD2d 563). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 109 A.D.2d 799, 486 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

109 A.D.2d 799 (Nycrest Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related