Peerless Importers, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peerless Importers, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

78 A.D.2d 855, 434 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13556

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 855 (Peerless Importers, Inc. 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

Peerless Importers, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 78 A.D.2d 855, 434 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated February 6, 1980, which, after a hearing, sustained certain charges which had been preferred against the petitioner and directed that a “letter of warning” be issued. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. The record, when viewed as a whole, fails to contain substantial evidence of the charges preferred against the petitioner, i.e., that it was either directly or [856]*856indirectly interested in or had rendered services to a retail licensee of alcoholic beverages, or that it had engaged in, participated in, and/or abetted a violation of subdivision 2'of section 93 or subdivision 13 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law or subdivision n of rule 36.1 of the rules of the respondent authority (9 NYCRR 53.1 [n]). In the absence of such evidence the charges should not have been sustained (cf. Matter of 4822 Bar & Grill v New York State Liq. Auth., 50 AD2d 889, affd 41 NY2d 875). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Martuscello, 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 respondent’s determination, dated February 6, 1980, which, after a hearing, sustained certain charges which had been preferred against the petitioner and directed that a “letter of warning” be issued. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and charges dismissed. The record, when viewed as a whole, fails to contain substantial evidence of the charges preferred against the petitioner, i.e., that it was either directly or [856]*856indirectly interested in or had rendered services to a retail licensee of alcoholic beverages, or that it had engaged in, participated in, and/or abetted a violation of subdivision 2'of section 93 or subdivision 13 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law or subdivision n of rule 36.1 of the rules of the respondent authority (9 NYCRR 53.1 [n]). In the absence of such evidence the charges should not have been sustained (cf. Matter of 4822 Bar & Grill v New York State Liq. Auth., 50 AD2d 889, affd 41 NY2d 875). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Hargett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 855, 434 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peerless-importers-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack