P.G.P. Entertainment Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

418 N.E.2d 1318, 52 N.Y.2d 886, 437 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2134
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 20, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 418 N.E.2d 1318 (P.G.P. Entertainment Corp. v. State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
P.G.P. Entertainment Corp. v. State Liquor Authority, 418 N.E.2d 1318, 52 N.Y.2d 886, 437 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2134 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the determination of the New York State Liquor Authority annulled and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, with directions to remand to the authority for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

The bases of the State Liquor Authority’s denial of petitioner’s application for a special on-premises liquor license were the perceived lack of expertise of the proprietor-corporate principals, the proximity of the proposed establishment to a synagogue and the adverse sentiment in the community. As this court recently held, neither community opposition nor proximity to places of worship or schools beyond the statutory limit can support a license denial (Matter of Circus Disco v New York State Liq. Auth., 51 [888]*888NY2d 24). Although the authority validly may consider the expertise or ability of the applicant to operate a particular establishment (see Matter of Herms v New York State Liq. Auth., 35 AD2d 833, affd no opn 28 NY2d 956), the agency’s reliance on additional improper factors requires that its determination be annulled. Nevertheless, since the lack of expertise of the applicant would be a valid ground for denial of the license (see id.), the matter should be remitted to the authority for reconsideration of the application on the basis of that and other appropriate criteria, with an appropriate opportunity to both sides to address the issues.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, with costs, etc.

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

Related

Matter of White Plains Fine Wine & Spirits LLC v. New York State Liq. Auth.
2020 NY Slip Op 3585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth.
125 A.D.3d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Junk Yard, Inc. v. New York State Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control
283 A.D.2d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Zito v. State Liquor Authority
86 A.D.2d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 N.E.2d 1318, 52 N.Y.2d 886, 437 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pgp-entertainment-corp-v-state-liquor-authority-ny-1981.