Salem Inn, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

372 N.E.2d 40, 43 N.Y.2d 713, 401 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2515
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 17, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 40 (Salem Inn, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salem Inn, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 372 N.E.2d 40, 43 N.Y.2d 713, 401 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2515 (N.Y. 1977).

Opinion

[714]*714OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order reversed and determination of State Liquor Authority reinstated, with costs.

The hearing officer specifically found that on two occasions during the course of nude dancing by performers at the licensee’s premises the licensee suffered or permitted disorderly conduct by reason of the dancer’s engagement in lewd and indecent acts. In adopting the hearing officer’s findings, the authority found that the performances were lewd and indecent per se and therefore in violation of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Law (compare Matter of Beale Props, v State Liq. Auth., 37 NY2d 861, with Matter of Inside Straight v State Liq. Auth., 56 AD2d 720, mot for lv to app den 41 NY2d 806; Matter of Rubinoff v State Liq. Auth., 53 AD2d 943, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 802).

An examination of the record discloses that there was substantial evidence to support the authority’s findings. The temporal duration of the lewd and indecent acts and the lack of direct contact between performers and patrons were but circumstances for consideration by the fact finders in making their determination (cf. Matter of Streber v State of New York Liq. Auth., 47 AD2d 808, 809).

It is not necessary to reach appellant’s constitutional arguments because the basis for the authority’s determination and this court’s reinstatement of the determination is the substantial evidence of lewd conduct suffered, conduct unprotected by constitutional limitations.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

La Maison De Sade, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
276 A.D.2d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Vanda Hodge Pub, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
215 A.D.2d 35 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Michael Frank of Jericho, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
173 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Highway Tavern Corp. v. McLaughlin
105 A.D.2d 122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Richmond Gentlemen, Inc. v. State of New York Liquor Authoity
106 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Blau-Par Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority
106 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
92-07 Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
80 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
New York State Liquor Authority v. Salem Social Club, Inc.
76 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Colon v. New York State Liquor Authority
70 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
TJPC Restaurant Corp. v. State Liquor Authority
61 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
372 N.E.2d 40, 43 N.Y.2d 713, 401 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salem-inn-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-ny-1977.