S. J. R. Restaurant Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S. J. R. Restaurant Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

38 A.D.2d 713, 329 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 713 (S. J. R. Restaurant 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

S. J. R. Restaurant Corp. v. State Liquor Authority, 38 A.D.2d 713, 329 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul appellant’s determination dated February 10, 1971 disapproving petitioner’s application for an approval of a corporate change, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 3, 1971, which granted the petition and ordered appellant to approve petitioner’s application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, petition dismissed and determination confirmed. Appellant denied petitioner’s application to change its corporate structure. The change involved the sale of 33%% of petitioner’s capital stock by the principal stockholder, Sylvia Rubin, to Seymour Smith. Based on Smith’s arrest record, his license history which included a seven-day suspension of his former liquor license in 1962 and a denial of his application for a new license for different premises in 1967 due to false material statements, and petitioner’s own license history which included a 10-day suspension in 1965 for permitting gambling on its premises, appellant concluded that approval of the transfer would involve a high degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the law. We cannot say that under these findings the determination of the Authority lacks a reasonable basis. It is, for the Authority to assess whether the proposed transferee is a person who will properly conduct the premises (Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v. O’Connell, 7 N Y 2d 299). Where there are facts presented from which such a conclusion can reasonably be drawn, the conclusion is for the Authority rather than the court (Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul appellant’s determination dated February 10, 1971 disapproving petitioner’s application for an approval of a corporate change, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 3, 1971, which granted the petition and ordered appellant to approve petitioner’s application. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, petition dismissed and determination confirmed. Appellant denied petitioner’s application to change its corporate structure. The change involved the sale of 33%% of petitioner’s capital stock by the principal stockholder, Sylvia Rubin, to Seymour Smith. Based on Smith’s arrest record, his license history which included a seven-day suspension of his former liquor license in 1962 and a denial of his application for a new license for different premises in 1967 due to false material statements, and petitioner’s own license history which included a 10-day suspension in 1965 for permitting gambling on its premises, appellant concluded that approval of the transfer would involve a high degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the law. We cannot say that under these findings the determination of the Authority lacks a reasonable basis. It is, for the Authority to assess whether the proposed transferee is a person who will properly conduct the premises (Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v. O’Connell, 7 N Y 2d 299). Where there are facts presented from which such a conclusion can reasonably be drawn, the conclusion is for the Authority rather than the court (Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465). Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 713, 329 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-j-r-restaurant-corp-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.