Pro Ben Corp. v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pro Ben Corp. v. McLaughlin

87 A.D.2d 871, 449 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16359

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

DecidedApril 19, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 871 (Pro Ben Corp. v. McLaughlin) 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

Pro Ben Corp. v. McLaughlin, 87 A.D.2d 871, 449 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law “in that it suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly”, and imposed a penalty. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the determination where, inter alia, the licensee’s manager engaged in an altercation with a patron, using unreasonable force under the circumstances (see Matter of Club 95 v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 NY2d 784, 785; cf. Matter of Playboy Club ofN. Y. v State Liq. Auth. of State ofN. Y., 23 NY2d 544, 549-550). Furthermore, the penalty imposed (a 15-day suspension, five of which are to be deferred) was not so disproportionate to the charge as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of24A Lounge v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD2d 1015). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Boyers, 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 a determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of violating subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law “in that it suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly”, and imposed a penalty. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the determination where, inter alia, the licensee’s manager engaged in an altercation with a patron, using unreasonable force under the circumstances (see Matter of Club 95 v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 NY2d 784, 785; cf. Matter of Playboy Club ofN. Y. v State Liq. Auth. of State ofN. Y., 23 NY2d 544, 549-550). Furthermore, the penalty imposed (a 15-day suspension, five of which are to be deferred) was not so disproportionate to the charge as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of24A Lounge v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD2d 1015). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 871, 449 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pro-ben-corp-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack