Rodriguez v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Rohan

3 A.D.2d 648, 158 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 648 (Rodriguez v. Rohan) 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

Rodriguez v. Rohan, 3 A.D.2d 648, 158 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination of the State Liquor Authority, insofar as it finds petitioner guilty of the violation charged, is confirmed. From the record, however, it would appear that the licensee, who has operated the premises since 1950, has never before been charged with any violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in connection therewith. If the record is correct, it may well be that the punishment imposed is excessive and an abuse of discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a). The proceeding is therefore remitted to the Authority for a reconsideration of the order directing a suspension of the license for 10 days and, as so modified, the determination is unanimously confirmed. Settle order on notice. Concur— Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

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

The determination of the State Liquor Authority, insofar as it finds petitioner guilty of the violation charged, is confirmed. From the record, however, it would appear that the licensee, who has operated the premises since 1950, has never before been charged with any violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law in connection therewith. If the record is correct, it may well be that the punishment imposed is excessive and an abuse of discretion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a). The proceeding is therefore remitted to the Authority for a reconsideration of the order directing a suspension of the license for 10 days and, as so modified, the determination is unanimously confirmed. Settle order on notice. Concur— Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 648, 158 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-rohan-nyappdiv-1957.