Stefan's Taverns, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stefan's Taverns, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

25 A.D.2d 824, 269 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4285

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 10, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination of the State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license, unanimously annulled, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursement to petitioner, and the Authority is directed to issue the license. We can find no rational basis in this record for the Authority’s action. Since there is no connection between petitioner and the prior licensee, the latter’s abandonment of the premises is an irrelevant factor. The employment record of petitioner’s vice-president, Mishkal, who is to devote full time to the conduct of the business, shows extensive experience as a waiter and bartender in a variety of establishments; and there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the premises will not be operated as a bona fide restaurant under his supervision (see Matter of 135 Restaurant Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A D 2d 651). That premises are not already open and operating as a restaurant is not a bar to the granting of a license (Matter of Rochester Colony v. Hostetter, 19 A D 2d 250; Matter of Tortora v. New York State Liq. Auth., 24 A D 2d 1019). Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a restaurant liquor license, unanimously annulled, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursement to petitioner, and the Authority is directed to issue the license. We can find no rational basis in this record for the Authority’s action. Since there is no connection between petitioner and the prior licensee, the latter’s abandonment of the premises is an irrelevant factor. The employment record of petitioner’s vice-president, Mishkal, who is to devote full time to the conduct of the business, shows extensive experience as a waiter and bartender in a variety of establishments; and there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the premises will not be operated as a bona fide restaurant under his supervision (see Matter of 135 Restaurant Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A D 2d 651). That premises are not already open and operating as a restaurant is not a bar to the granting of a license (Matter of Rochester Colony v. Hostetter, 19 A D 2d 250; Matter of Tortora v. New York State Liq. Auth., 24 A D 2d 1019). Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.

Stefan's Taverns, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 25 A.D.2d 824, 269 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

25 A.D.2d 824 (Stefan's Taverns, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related