Schmeltz v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmeltz v. O'Connell

284 A.D. 826, 132 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D. 826 (Schmeltz v. O'Connell) 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

Schmeltz v. O'Connell, 284 A.D. 826, 132 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for a period of fifteen days. We have granted permission to have this matter heard and determined upon typewritten records and counsel for both parties have stipulated in open court that the matter be heard forthwith. The suspension was based upon a finding that petitioner sold alcoholic beverages to a minor under the age of eighteen on March 23, 1953, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Petitioner was originally charged with three separate offenses of the same character. Charges one and two were finally dismissed, but the violation involved in the third charge was sustained. Petitioner was accorded a hearing at which testimony was taken. [827]*827An examination of the record indicates that the testimony posed a fair question of fact, and we cannot say the Authority did not have before it substantial evidence to sustain its determination. Under familiar principles of administrative law we cannot weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency. Determination confirmed, without costs. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Halpem and Imrie, JJ., concur.

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

This is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for a period of fifteen days. We have granted permission to have this matter heard and determined upon typewritten records and counsel for both parties have stipulated in open court that the matter be heard forthwith. The suspension was based upon a finding that petitioner sold alcoholic beverages to a minor under the age of eighteen on March 23, 1953, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Petitioner was originally charged with three separate offenses of the same character. Charges one and two were finally dismissed, but the violation involved in the third charge was sustained. Petitioner was accorded a hearing at which testimony was taken. [827]*827An examination of the record indicates that the testimony posed a fair question of fact, and we cannot say the Authority did not have before it substantial evidence to sustain its determination. Under familiar principles of administrative law we cannot weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency. Determination confirmed, without costs. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Halpem and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D. 826, 132 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmeltz-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1954.