Procida v. State Liquor Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Procida v. State Liquor Auth.

79 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13950

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 607 (Procida v. State Liquor Auth.) 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

Procida v. State Liquor Auth., 79 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated July 24, 1979, which, after a hearing, (1) sustained a charge that petitioner’s premises were no longer operated as a bona fide premises within the contemplation of the license issued therefor, and (2) canceled petitioner’s license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The record contains sufficient findings of fact to permit appellate review (see Matter of Leon’s Broadway Corp. v State Liq. Auth., 36 AD2d 519). The authority’s determination that petitioner’s store was no longer a bona fide grocery store is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Cortland-Glinton, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 59 AD2d 228). Furthermore, the penalty imposed (cancellation of petitioner’s beer license) was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Club Illusions v State Liq. Auth., 25 AD2d 865; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Finally, the “Notice of Pleading and Hearing” informed petitioner of his right to be represented by counsel and that his license may be revoked, canceled or suspended. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Margett and Weinstein, 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, dated July 24, 1979, which, after a hearing, (1) sustained a charge that petitioner’s premises were no longer operated as a bona fide premises within the contemplation of the license issued therefor, and (2) canceled petitioner’s license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The record contains sufficient findings of fact to permit appellate review (see Matter of Leon’s Broadway Corp. v State Liq. Auth., 36 AD2d 519). The authority’s determination that petitioner’s store was no longer a bona fide grocery store is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Cortland-Glinton, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 59 AD2d 228). Furthermore, the penalty imposed (cancellation of petitioner’s beer license) was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Club Illusions v State Liq. Auth., 25 AD2d 865; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Finally, the “Notice of Pleading and Hearing” informed petitioner of his right to be represented by counsel and that his license may be revoked, canceled or suspended. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 607, 433 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procida-v-state-liquor-auth-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack