Shalala v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shalala v. O'Connell

268 A.D. 817, 50 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3601

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

DecidedJune 28, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D. 817 (Shalala 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

Shalala v. O'Connell, 268 A.D. 817, 50 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. All concur, except Dowling, J., who dissents and votes for annulling the determination in the following memorandum: The findings and [818]*818determination of the Authority are not supported by any substantial evidence as required by section 1296 of the Civil Practice Act. The determination, therefore, should be annulled and the proceedings should be dismissed. (Matter of Konopka v. Bruckman, 290 N. Y. 777; People v. Rankin, 92 Misc. 62, 75.) (Proceeding to review the determination of the State Liquor Authority which revoked petitioners’ restaurant liquor license.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

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

Determination confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. All concur, except Dowling, J., who dissents and votes for annulling the determination in the following memorandum: The findings and [818]*818determination of the Authority are not supported by any substantial evidence as required by section 1296 of the Civil Practice Act. The determination, therefore, should be annulled and the proceedings should be dismissed. (Matter of Konopka v. Bruckman, 290 N. Y. 777; People v. Rankin, 92 Misc. 62, 75.) (Proceeding to review the determination of the State Liquor Authority which revoked petitioners’ restaurant liquor license.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 817, 50 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shalala-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack