Plunkett v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plunkett v. City of Rochester

136 A.D.2d 970, 524 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1409

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.2d 970 (Plunkett v. City of Rochester) 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

Plunkett v. City of Rochester, 136 A.D.2d 970, 524 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of respondent Chief of Police denying petitioner’s application to renew an amusement center license was supported by substantial evidence (see, Merchants Rd. v Leach, 92 AD2d 719). The Chief of Police had the authority to deny petitioner’s application for renewal for failure to comply with Rochester Code provisions (see, Rochester Code § 29-15 [A]; § 29-18 [A]). Petitioner had been convicted of violating the noise ordinance of the City of Rochester (Rochester Code § 75-12 [A]) on numerous occasions in the six months prior to the application for renewal. At the hearing, neighborhood residents, police and the owner and an employee of Jazzberry’s testified to disorder on the premises and incidents of noise audible beyond the property line. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of respondent Chief of Police denying petitioner’s application to renew an amusement center license was supported by substantial evidence (see, Merchants Rd. v Leach, 92 AD2d 719). The Chief of Police had the authority to deny petitioner’s application for renewal for failure to comply with Rochester Code provisions (see, Rochester Code § 29-15 [A]; § 29-18 [A]). Petitioner had been convicted of violating the noise ordinance of the City of Rochester (Rochester Code § 75-12 [A]) on numerous occasions in the six months prior to the application for renewal. At the hearing, neighborhood residents, police and the owner and an employee of Jazzberry’s testified to disorder on the premises and incidents of noise audible beyond the property line. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 970, 524 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plunkett-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack