Ross v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. State Liquor Authority

39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311

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

DecidedJune 13, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 866 (Ross 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

Ross v. State Liquor Authority, 39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated November 17, 1971, suspending petitioner’s solicitor’s permit for a period of 35 days (suspension deferred) and imposing a $500 bond claim, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements. The statement of the owner of the retail license was completely repudiated by him at the hearing before the State Liquor Authority and his testimony at that hearing that petitioner did not offer him free goods and that he never received any from petitioner, is otherwise unrefuted. The prior contradictory statement could be received for the purpose of impeachment only and not as a substitute for the oral testimony given at the hearing by the same person. “ As hearsay, such statements, standing alone, lack competency and sufficient probative force to sustain material findings or a determination required to be supported by substantial evidence. [Citing authorities.] Moreover, hearsay evidence may not be used by an administrative tribunal or officer in such a manner as to deprive a party of the right to a fair hearing where that right is guaranteed by law. Such right would be illusory if the administrative tribunal or officer could ground its determination on investigatory data and hearsay evídenóe.” (Matter of Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A D 2d 5, 7-8; see, also, Matter of Altschuller v. Bressler, 289 N. Y. 463.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., MeGivern, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated November 17, 1971, suspending petitioner’s solicitor’s permit for a period of 35 days (suspension deferred) and imposing a $500 bond claim, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements. The statement of the owner of the retail license was completely repudiated by him at the hearing before the State Liquor Authority and his testimony at that hearing that petitioner did not offer him free goods and that he never received any from petitioner, is otherwise unrefuted. The prior contradictory statement could be received for the purpose of impeachment only and not as a substitute for the oral testimony given at the hearing by the same person. “ As hearsay, such statements, standing alone, lack competency and sufficient probative force to sustain material findings or a determination required to be supported by substantial evidence. [Citing authorities.] Moreover, hearsay evidence may not be used by an administrative tribunal or officer in such a manner as to deprive a party of the right to a fair hearing where that right is guaranteed by law. Such right would be illusory if the administrative tribunal or officer could ground its determination on investigatory data and hearsay evídenóe.” (Matter of Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A D 2d 5, 7-8; see, also, Matter of Altschuller v. Bressler, 289 N. Y. 463.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., MeGivern, Murphy, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack