Shore Haven Lounge Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shore Haven Lounge Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

44 A.D.2d 593, 353 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 593 (Shore Haven Lounge Inc. v. New York 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

Shore Haven Lounge Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 44 A.D.2d 593, 353 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review two determinations , of respondent, both dated February 13, 1974, one canceling petitioner’s liquor license and imposing a bond claim of $250 and the other disapproving petitioner’s renewal application and recalling petitioner’s renewal license. Determination canceling petitioner’s license modified, on the law, by reducing the penalty to a 30-day suspension commencing as of March 1,1974, with the $250 bond claim. As so modified, said determination confirmed; and the other determination annulled; all without costs. The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support respondent’s findings (1) that petitioner had failed to keep fully adequate books and records as required by subdivision 12 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and (2) that Pasquale Morgigno, petitioner’s sole principal of record, was not the sole and true party in interest in the licensed premises, thereby violating subdivision 2 of section 99-d of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by effecting a corporate change without having first duly obtained respondent’s permission to do so. In light of the conceded fact that petitioner’s record since petitioner’s original license was granted in 1968 is otherwise unblemished, we are of the opinion that the penalty of cancellation and non-renewal was so disproportionate to the offense as to constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of respondent (see Matter of Potter v. New York State Liq. Auth., 37 A D 2d 760; Matter of Lakeside Country Club v. New York State. Liq. Auth., 34 A D 2d 1100; Matter of 230 Green Rest. Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 32 A D 2d 898, affd. 27 N Y 2d 606). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review two determinations , of respondent, both dated February 13, 1974, one canceling petitioner’s liquor license and imposing a bond claim of $250 and the other disapproving petitioner’s renewal application and recalling petitioner’s renewal license. Determination canceling petitioner’s license modified, on the law, by reducing the penalty to a 30-day suspension commencing as of March 1,1974, with the $250 bond claim. As so modified, said determination confirmed; and the other determination annulled; all without costs. The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support respondent’s findings (1) that petitioner had failed to keep fully adequate books and records as required by subdivision 12 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and (2) that Pasquale Morgigno, petitioner’s sole principal of record, was not the sole and true party in interest in the licensed premises, thereby violating subdivision 2 of section 99-d of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by effecting a corporate change without having first duly obtained respondent’s permission to do so. In light of the conceded fact that petitioner’s record since petitioner’s original license was granted in 1968 is otherwise unblemished, we are of the opinion that the penalty of cancellation and non-renewal was so disproportionate to the offense as to constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of respondent (see Matter of Potter v. New York State Liq. Auth., 37 A D 2d 760; Matter of Lakeside Country Club v. New York State. Liq. Auth., 34 A D 2d 1100; Matter of 230 Green Rest. Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 32 A D 2d 898, affd. 27 N Y 2d 606). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 593, 353 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shore-haven-lounge-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack