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

123 A.D.2d 321, 506 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60095

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in NYCREST Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority. Read the opinion of the Court — 109 A.D.2d 799 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 8, 1986·Published

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 3, 1984, finding the petitioner in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and imposing a penalty.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Based upon a review of the record, we conclude that the respondent’s determination finding the petitioner in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) is supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the imposed penalty of the suspension of the petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days and a $500 bond forfeiture was not arbitrary and capricious or so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Kooper, 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 December 3, 1984, finding the petitioner in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and imposing a penalty.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Based upon a review of the record, we conclude that the respondent’s determination finding the petitioner in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) is supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the imposed penalty of the suspension of the petitioner’s liquor license for 10 days and a $500 bond forfeiture was not arbitrary and capricious or so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.

NYCREST Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 123 A.D.2d 321, 506 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

123 A.D.2d 321 (NYCREST Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related