Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

276 A.D.2d 392, 715 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10786

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 24, 2000·Published

Opinion

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated February 2, 1999, which imposed a penalty of 30 days’ suspension and a civil penalty of $2,500 for violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), 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 [Paula Omansky, J.], entered June 1, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

The finding that petitioner suffered or permitted its licensed premises to become “disorderly” (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 [6]) by sanctioning lewd and indecent conduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v State Liq. Auth., 228 AD2d 172; Matter of Rubinoff v State Liq. Auth., 53 AD2d 943). The penalty is not excessive (see, Matter of Korina Rest. & Bar v State Liq. Auth., 267 AD2d 38; Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v State Liq. Auth., supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated February 2, 1999, which imposed a penalty of 30 days’ suspension and a civil penalty of $2,500 for violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), 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 [Paula Omansky, J.], entered June 1, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

The finding that petitioner suffered or permitted its licensed premises to become “disorderly” (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 [6]) by sanctioning lewd and indecent conduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v State Liq. Auth., 228 AD2d 172; Matter of Rubinoff v State Liq. Auth., 53 AD2d 943). The penalty is not excessive (see, Matter of Korina Rest. & Bar v State Liq. Auth., 267 AD2d 38; Matter of La Trieste Rest. & Cabaret v State Liq. Auth., supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 276 A.D.2d 392, 715 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 392 (Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related