Sosti v. Bruckman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sosti v. Bruckman

259 A.D. 776, 18 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 776 (Sosti v. Bruckman) 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

Sosti v. Bruckman, 259 A.D. 776, 18 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the action of the State Liquor Authority suspending the petitioner’s hotel liquor license for a period of two days. On November 21, 1939, an investigator of respondents visited the premises of petitioner and in his report stated that the taps on petitioner’s bar “ showed that Dotterwyek, Tom O’Shanter, Irish Cream and Ballantine were on tap ” and that in the cellar of petitioner’s premises he “ found the following barrels on tap: Stegmaiers, Genesee, Tom O’Shanter and Dotterwyek.” Thereafter respondent issued a revocation hearing order containing the following charge against the petitioner: “ Viol. Sec. 106, Sub. 4A of the ABC Law, in that he [petitioner] sold beer at a bar or counter, the beer taps of which bar did not have affixed thereto a sign setting forth the name of the brewer.” A young man was in charge and when the investigator returned from the cellar the man in charge was changing the taps at the bar. The investigator did not buy any beer or see any sold. There is no evidence supporting the order of revocation herein. The determination of the State Liquor Authority should be annulled. Determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending the petitioner’s license annulled, on the law and facts, with fifty dollars costs to the petitioner. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Sehenck, JJ., concur.

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

This is a proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the action of the State Liquor Authority suspending the petitioner’s hotel liquor license for a period of two days. On November 21, 1939, an investigator of respondents visited the premises of petitioner and in his report stated that the taps on petitioner’s bar “ showed that Dotterwyek, Tom O’Shanter, Irish Cream and Ballantine were on tap ” and that in the cellar of petitioner’s premises he “ found the following barrels on tap: Stegmaiers, Genesee, Tom O’Shanter and Dotterwyek.” Thereafter respondent issued a revocation hearing order containing the following charge against the petitioner: “ Viol. Sec. 106, Sub. 4A of the ABC Law, in that he [petitioner] sold beer at a bar or counter, the beer taps of which bar did not have affixed thereto a sign setting forth the name of the brewer.” A young man was in charge and when the investigator returned from the cellar the man in charge was changing the taps at the bar. The investigator did not buy any beer or see any sold. There is no evidence supporting the order of revocation herein. The determination of the State Liquor Authority should be annulled. Determination of the State Liquor Authority suspending the petitioner’s license annulled, on the law and facts, with fifty dollars costs to the petitioner. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Sehenck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 776, 18 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sosti-v-bruckman-nyappdiv-1940.