Panzella v. Bruckman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panzella v. Bruckman

255 A.D. 864, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5690

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 864 (Panzella v. Bruckman) 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

Panzella v. Bruckman, 255 A.D. 864, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner applied for a license to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. His application was approved by the Westchester county alcoholic beverage control board but was denied by the State Liquor Authority on the grounds that the street was sparsely populated and that there were sufficient licensed places for the needs of the community. The petitioner brings this proceeding to review, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, upon the ground that the disapproval of the application was arbitrary, capricious and unwarranted. Determination unanimously confirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

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

The petitioner applied for a license to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. His application was approved by the Westchester county alcoholic beverage control board but was denied by the State Liquor Authority on the grounds that the street was sparsely populated and that there were sufficient licensed places for the needs of the community. The petitioner brings this proceeding to review, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, upon the ground that the disapproval of the application was arbitrary, capricious and unwarranted. Determination unanimously confirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 864, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panzella-v-bruckman-nyappdiv-1938.