Rab Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rab Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

38 A.D.2d 700, 328 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5518

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 700 (Rab Rest. Corp. 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

Rab Rest. Corp. v. State Liquor Authority, 38 A.D.2d 700, 328 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated November 16, 1970, which suspended petitioner's restaurant liquor license for a period of 5 days on one charge and 10 days on another charge, to run concurrently for a total of 10 days. Determination unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of deferring the suspension therein ordered, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In our opinion, upon the record before us, the imposition of an unconditional suspension was so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to constitute an abuse of discretion, and the penalty of suspension should have been deferred. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated November 16, 1970, which suspended petitioner's restaurant liquor license for a period of 5 days on one charge and 10 days on another charge, to run concurrently for a total of 10 days. Determination unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of deferring the suspension therein ordered, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In our opinion, upon the record before us, the imposition of an unconditional suspension was so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to constitute an abuse of discretion, and the penalty of suspension should have been deferred. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 700, 328 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rab-rest-corp-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.