Summerset Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Summerset Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

120 A.D.2d 600, 502 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56684

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

DecidedMay 12, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 600 (Summerset Corp. 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

Summerset Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 120 A.D.2d 600, 502 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority (hereinafter the SLA) which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated July 3, 1985, which annulled the determination and directed the SLA to approve the application.

Appeal dismissed and judgment vacated.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

The SLA is awarded costs.

Since the petitioner contends that the determination of the SLA, made after a hearing, was not supported by substantial evidence, the matter should have been transferred to this court for determination in the first instance (see, CPLR 7804 [g]). However, treating this case as though it had been properly transferred to this court, and disposing of all of the issues de novo (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of De Vonish v Scully, 115 AD2d 649), we find that the determination of the SLA disapproving the petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the failure of Lloyd Gordon to report the summonses issued to him on March 3, 1984, and the information supplied by Police Officer Erwin concerning the serving of alcoholic beverages by the petitioner without the appropriate license. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority (hereinafter the SLA) which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated July 3, 1985, which annulled the determination and directed the SLA to approve the application.

Appeal dismissed and judgment vacated.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

The SLA is awarded costs.

Since the petitioner contends that the determination of the SLA, made after a hearing, was not supported by substantial evidence, the matter should have been transferred to this court for determination in the first instance (see, CPLR 7804 [g]). However, treating this case as though it had been properly transferred to this court, and disposing of all of the issues de novo (see, CPLR 7804 [g]; Matter of De Vonish v Scully, 115 AD2d 649), we find that the determination of the SLA disapproving the petitioner’s application is supported by substantial evidence, namely, the failure of Lloyd Gordon to report the summonses issued to him on March 3, 1984, and the information supplied by Police Officer Erwin concerning the serving of alcoholic beverages by the petitioner without the appropriate license. Eiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 600, 502 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summerset-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack