Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan

10 A.D.2d 987, 202 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721

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

DecidedMay 23, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 987 (Ross's Dairies, Ltd. 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

Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan, 10 A.D.2d 987, 202 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated December 11, 1959, suspending for 10 days petitioner’s retail off-premises beer license on the ground that the petitioner had violated subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor actually under the age of 18 years. The proceeding lias been transferred to this court for disposition (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 5, 1960. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. A sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor who is actually under the age of 18 years constitutes a violation of the statute, regardless of the fact that the minor appeared to be over that age (Matter of Barnett v. O’Connell, 279 App. Div. 449). Nor is it a defense .that the minor represented herself to be, or presented purported proof of being, over that age (Matter of Ward v. O’Connell, 280 App. Div. 1021). Such a sale is an act malum prohibitum and is not to be excused by ignorance, mistake of fact or honorable intention (People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132; People v. Davin, 1 A D 2d 811). Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated December 11, 1959, suspending for 10 days petitioner’s retail off-premises beer license on the ground that the petitioner had violated subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor actually under the age of 18 years. The proceeding lias been transferred to this court for disposition (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 5, 1960. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. A sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor who is actually under the age of 18 years constitutes a violation of the statute, regardless of the fact that the minor appeared to be over that age (Matter of Barnett v. O’Connell, 279 App. Div. 449). Nor is it a defense .that the minor represented herself to be, or presented purported proof of being, over that age (Matter of Ward v. O’Connell, 280 App. Div. 1021). Such a sale is an act malum prohibitum and is not to be excused by ignorance, mistake of fact or honorable intention (People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132; People v. Davin, 1 A D 2d 811). Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 987, 202 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosss-dairies-ltd-v-rohan-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack