Square Rigger Bar v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Square Rigger Bar v. New York State Liquor Authority

181 A.D.2d 611, 581 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 611 (Square Rigger Bar 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

Square Rigger Bar v. New York State Liquor Authority, 181 A.D.2d 611, 581 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination of respondent Liquor Authority, dated November 30, 1990, which suspended for 10 days petitioner’s on-premises liquor license and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County, Stuart C. Cohen, J., entered March 21, 1991) is dismissed, without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner violated section 53.1 (p) of the Rules of the New York State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR) by unauthorized use of a trade name in connection with the licensed premises, and [612]*612violated section 100 (4) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by unauthorized maintenance and operation of more than one stand-up bar on the licensed premises (CPLR 7803; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We perceive no abuse of discretion by respondent in imposing the penalty herein (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Determination of respondent Liquor Authority, dated November 30, 1990, which suspended for 10 days petitioner’s on-premises liquor license and imposed a $1,000 bond forfeiture, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County, Stuart C. Cohen, J., entered March 21, 1991) is dismissed, without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination that petitioner violated section 53.1 (p) of the Rules of the New York State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR) by unauthorized use of a trade name in connection with the licensed premises, and [612]*612violated section 100 (4) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by unauthorized maintenance and operation of more than one stand-up bar on the licensed premises (CPLR 7803; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We perceive no abuse of discretion by respondent in imposing the penalty herein (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra). Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 611, 581 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/square-rigger-bar-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack