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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 1980·Published

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] indirectly 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] indirectly 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.

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

78 A.D.2d 855 (Peerless Importers, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related