O B & M Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O B & M Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

23 A.D.2d 726, 257 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541

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

DecidedApril 1, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 726 (O B & M Rest. Corp. v. 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

O B & M Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority, 23 A.D.2d 726, 257 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 4, 1964, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the petition dismissed. On the record presented it cannot he said as a matter of law that appellant’s refusal to renew petitioner’s liquor license was an unreasonable exercise of its discretionary power and that it acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. An application for renewal is regarded in the same manner as an application for a new license (Matter of Restaurants Long-champs v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 684, 686, affid. 296 N. Y. 888) and the test is whether appellant acted arbitrarily or capriciously (Matter of Wager v. [727]*727State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465; Matter of Glintenkamp v. O’Cotmell, 271 App. Div. 795, a it'd. 296 N. Y. 806). The facts in the record support appellant’s contention that it had reasonable grounds for its, determination. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on November 4, 1964, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the petition dismissed. On the record presented it cannot he said as a matter of law that appellant’s refusal to renew petitioner’s liquor license was an unreasonable exercise of its discretionary power and that it acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. An application for renewal is regarded in the same manner as an application for a new license (Matter of Restaurants Long-champs v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 684, 686, affid. 296 N. Y. 888) and the test is whether appellant acted arbitrarily or capriciously (Matter of Wager v. [727]*727State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465; Matter of Glintenkamp v. O’Cotmell, 271 App. Div. 795, a it'd. 296 N. Y. 806). The facts in the record support appellant’s contention that it had reasonable grounds for its, determination. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 726, 257 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-b-m-rest-corp-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack