Ritor Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ritor Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

27 A.D.2d 710, 279 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 710 (Ritor Rest. Corp. v. New York 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

Ritor Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 27 A.D.2d 710, 279 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority revoking petitioner’s restaurant liquor license, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and charges 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed, and the determination otherwise confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss charges 2, 3 and 4 under section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law should have been granted. (Matter of Benjamin v. State Liq. Auth., 13 N Y 2d 227; Matter of Hacker v. State Liq. Auth., 21 A D 2d 755; Matter of Vilabar Cafe v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A D 2d 662.) The findings on charges 1, 6 and 7 are supported by substantial evidence and are confirmed. We find no reason for disturbing the penalty of revocation. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority revoking petitioner’s restaurant liquor license, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and charges 2, 3 and 4 are dismissed, and the determination otherwise confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss charges 2, 3 and 4 under section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law should have been granted. (Matter of Benjamin v. State Liq. Auth., 13 N Y 2d 227; Matter of Hacker v. State Liq. Auth., 21 A D 2d 755; Matter of Vilabar Cafe v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A D 2d 662.) The findings on charges 1, 6 and 7 are supported by substantial evidence and are confirmed. We find no reason for disturbing the penalty of revocation. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 710, 279 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritor-rest-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1967.