Steenken v. State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steenken v. State Liquor Authority

34 A.D.2d 985, 313 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483

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

DecidedJune 15, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 985 (Steenken 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

Steenken v. State Liquor Authority, 34 A.D.2d 985, 313 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CFLR to review a determination of respondent, dated December 29, 1969, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 30 days (minus eight days for “ No Contest” plea; and seven days deferred) and made claim upon petitioner’s $1,000 bond. Determination modified, on the law, by deleting the provision making claim on the bond. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Under the facts and circumstances disclosed by this record, we find that the making of the claim on the bond, in addition to suspending petitioner’s license, constituted an abuse of discretion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CFLR to review a determination of respondent, dated December 29, 1969, which suspended petitioner’s liquor license for 30 days (minus eight days for “ No Contest” plea; and seven days deferred) and made claim upon petitioner’s $1,000 bond. Determination modified, on the law, by deleting the provision making claim on the bond. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Under the facts and circumstances disclosed by this record, we find that the making of the claim on the bond, in addition to suspending petitioner’s license, constituted an abuse of discretion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 985, 313 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steenken-v-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1970.