Popper's Delicacies Inc. v. State Liquor Authority

98 A.D.2d 601, 469 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20879
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 601 (Popper's Delicacies 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
Popper's Delicacies Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 98 A.D.2d 601, 469 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority (SLA), dated May 12, 1983, finding the petitioner in violation of rule 36.1 (d) of the SLA and imposing a penalty of (i) license cancellation and (ii) bond forfeiture in the sum of $1,000, modified, on the law, by striking the penalty of the $1,000 bond forfeiture, and otherwise confirmed, and by remanding this matter for the imposition of the appropriate penalty in accordance with the memorandum, without costs. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the State Liquor Authority’s determination that petitioner’s establishment was no longer being operated as a “grocery store”. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 3, subd 13; Matter of Best v New York State Liq. Auth., 59 NY2d 906, revg 89 AD2d 893; Matter ofProcida v State Liq. Auth., 79 AD2d 607.) Thus, we find that the cancellation of petitioner’s beer license was not shockingly disproportionate to the offense. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233.) However, the additional penalty of a $1,000 bond forfeiture is shocking to this court’s sense of fairness because the petitioner’s record was unblemished prior to the offense. We find that there should be no bond forfeiture in this proceeding since this additional penalty is overly severe. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the agency for the imposition of an appropriate penalty in accordance with this memorandum. (Rob Tess Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 49 NY2d 874.) Concur — Murphy, P. J.., Ross, Carro, Fein and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

2 West 125th Liquors, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
217 A.D.2d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Valentino v. State Liquor Authority
164 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
La Masquerade Restaurant Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
150 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 A.D.2d 601, 469 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poppers-delicacies-inc-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1983.