Snitkin v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snitkin v. State Liquor Authority

29 A.D.2d 853, 289 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4432

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 853 (Snitkin 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

Snitkin v. State Liquor Authority, 29 A.D.2d 853, 289 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper) affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Sarafite, J. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in.the following memorandum: I dissent and would uphold the determination of the Authority. The approval of the removal application herein has resulted in a violation of subdivision 16 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and thus the Authority had no alternative but to annul its previous action. Moreover, the formation of South Shore Mall Liquors, Inc., as “ the immediate lessor ”, I do not accept as an ingenuous act or one without guile. Nor do I find it easy to believe the licensee did not know the identity of its landlord until April, 1966. It was not a well-guarded secret. The Bay Shore Sentinel proclaimed Macy’s ownership on April 21, 1965. The Bay Shore-Brightwaters Liquor Dealers Association knew it, and through their attorneys formally protested on April [854]*85427, 1965 and again on December 1, 1965. It may very well be the statute needs revision to mitigate the severity of its application in situations such as we have here. That is not the function of the courts. (Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Crystal & Son, 2 N Y 2d 961, 963.)

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

Order and judgment (one paper) affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Sarafite, J. Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in.the following memorandum: I dissent and would uphold the determination of the Authority. The approval of the removal application herein has resulted in a violation of subdivision 16 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and thus the Authority had no alternative but to annul its previous action. Moreover, the formation of South Shore Mall Liquors, Inc., as “ the immediate lessor ”, I do not accept as an ingenuous act or one without guile. Nor do I find it easy to believe the licensee did not know the identity of its landlord until April, 1966. It was not a well-guarded secret. The Bay Shore Sentinel proclaimed Macy’s ownership on April 21, 1965. The Bay Shore-Brightwaters Liquor Dealers Association knew it, and through their attorneys formally protested on April [854]*85427, 1965 and again on December 1, 1965. It may very well be the statute needs revision to mitigate the severity of its application in situations such as we have here. That is not the function of the courts. (Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. v. Crystal & Son, 2 N Y 2d 961, 963.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 853, 289 N.Y.S.2d 927, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snitkin-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack