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

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 392 (Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 392, 715 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stringfellows-of-new-york-ltd-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack