South Broadway Associates, Ltd. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

South Broadway Associates, Ltd. v. State Liquor Authority

201 A.D.2d 392, 607 N.Y.S.2d 339

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 392 (South Broadway Associates, Ltd. 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

South Broadway Associates, Ltd. v. State Liquor Authority, 201 A.D.2d 392, 607 N.Y.S.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hallstead Christ, J.), entered January 28, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination suspending petitioner’s license for 15 days and imposing a $1,000.00 bond forfeiture, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent, in its administrative capacity, may rescind the unauthorized "Letter of Warning” issued by its Deputy Commissioner, after petitioner had already been notified that a disciplinary proceeding against it had been commenced (cf., Matter of Tirdell v State Liq. Auth., 15 AD2d 773, 774, affd 12 NY2d 935). We further note that the penalty imposed was not unduly harsh and excessive. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hallstead Christ, J.), entered January 28, 1992, which denied the petition and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination suspending petitioner’s license for 15 days and imposing a $1,000.00 bond forfeiture, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent, in its administrative capacity, may rescind the unauthorized "Letter of Warning” issued by its Deputy Commissioner, after petitioner had already been notified that a disciplinary proceeding against it had been commenced (cf., Matter of Tirdell v State Liq. Auth., 15 AD2d 773, 774, affd 12 NY2d 935). We further note that the penalty imposed was not unduly harsh and excessive. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 392, 607 N.Y.S.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-broadway-associates-ltd-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack