Palmisano v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmisano v. State Liquor Authority

20 A.D.2d 621, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2735

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 621 (Palmisano 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

Palmisano v. State Liquor Authority, 20 A.D.2d 621, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, petition dismissed, and determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed. Memorandum: The determination of the Authority must be confirmed if there is proof that there was scope for the reasonable exercise of discretion by appellant. (Cf. Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465, 468.) We find such proof in the record. The determination of appellant was neither arbitrary nor capricious (cf. Matter of Fiore v. O’Connell, 297 N. Y. 260, 262). It follows that the determination should have been confirmed by Special Term. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term annulling a determination of respondent denying petitioners’ application for restaurant liquor license.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, petition dismissed, and determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed. Memorandum: The determination of the Authority must be confirmed if there is proof that there was scope for the reasonable exercise of discretion by appellant. (Cf. Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465, 468.) We find such proof in the record. The determination of appellant was neither arbitrary nor capricious (cf. Matter of Fiore v. O’Connell, 297 N. Y. 260, 262). It follows that the determination should have been confirmed by Special Term. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term annulling a determination of respondent denying petitioners’ application for restaurant liquor license.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 621, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmisano-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack