Specialized Trucking Co. v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Specialized Trucking Co. v. State Liquor Authority

40 A.D.2d 970, 338 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3080

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 970 (Specialized Trucking Co. 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

Specialized Trucking Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 40 A.D.2d 970, 338 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Corrected cancellation order of respondent State Liquor Authority dated July 5, 1972, unanimously modified, oh the law and as a matter of discretion, to reduce the sanction to bond forfeiture of $500 and suspension for 30 days to begin at expiration of the stay granted herein, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with and confirm respondent’s findings. However, we find that cancellation is an unduly harsh penalty for the infraction proved. While petitioner was engaged in an illegal activity, it is clear that it was under the impression that it had successfully avoided the law. When petitioner realized that its activity violated the law, it immediately desisted. Under the circumstances we conclude that the suspension provided for is an appropriate sanction. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Corrected cancellation order of respondent State Liquor Authority dated July 5, 1972, unanimously modified, oh the law and as a matter of discretion, to reduce the sanction to bond forfeiture of $500 and suspension for 30 days to begin at expiration of the stay granted herein, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree with and confirm respondent’s findings. However, we find that cancellation is an unduly harsh penalty for the infraction proved. While petitioner was engaged in an illegal activity, it is clear that it was under the impression that it had successfully avoided the law. When petitioner realized that its activity violated the law, it immediately desisted. Under the circumstances we conclude that the suspension provided for is an appropriate sanction. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 970, 338 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/specialized-trucking-co-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1972.