Pierse's Broadway Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierse's Broadway Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Authority

25 A.D.2d 435, 267 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5225

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 435 (Pierse's Broadway Wine & Liquor Co. 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

Pierse's Broadway Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 25 A.D.2d 435, 267 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 123 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law to enjoin Joseph Mage from engaging or participating in the sale of liquor, wine and cider at retail at a stated address for off-premises consumption, or from carrying on such business at said premises contrary to provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the State Liquor Authority and the said Mage appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 8, 1965, which, among other things: (1) denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 404 to dismiss the petition upon objections in point of law; (2) directed them to serve and file their answers; (3) ordered that any of the parties, upon two days’ notice, may renotiee the matter for disposition on the merits at Special Term, Part I; and (4) stayed the Authority from taking any steps toward effectuating its approval of the application for the license. Order affirmed, without costs, in all respects except as to such part thereof which contains the stay, and as to such part, the appeal is dismissed as academic, this court having previously vacated it (Matter of McNulty v. State Liq. Auth., 24 A D 2d 599, affd. 17 N Y 2d 434). The time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.

Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to section 123 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law to enjoin Joseph Mage from engaging or participating in the sale of liquor, wine and cider at retail at a stated address for off-premises consumption, or from carrying on such business at said premises contrary to provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the State Liquor Authority and the said Mage appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 8, 1965, which, among other things: (1) denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 404 to dismiss the petition upon objections in point of law; (2) directed them to serve and file their answers; (3) ordered that any of the parties, upon two days’ notice, may renotiee the matter for disposition on the merits at Special Term, Part I; and (4) stayed the Authority from taking any steps toward effectuating its approval of the application for the license. Order affirmed, without costs, in all respects except as to such part thereof which contains the stay, and as to such part, the appeal is dismissed as academic, this court having previously vacated it (Matter of McNulty v. State Liq. Auth., 24 A D 2d 599, affd. 17 N Y 2d 434). The time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.

Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 435, 267 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierses-broadway-wine-liquor-co-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1966.