Tartous, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tartous, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

295 A.D.2d 936, 744 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6340

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 14, 2002·Published

Opinion

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Paris, J.), entered December 11, 2001, seeking to annul the determination that petitioners violated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law with costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: The determination that petitioners violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 is not supported by substantial evidence. At the administrative hearing, respondent presented convincing proof that several persons under 21 years of age were in petitioners’ establishment on the night of the alleged violation. Respondent, however, failed to establish that any alcoholic beverages were sold, delivered or given away to any underage patron. Thus, “there was a complete lack of evidence to support the determination that the petitioner [s] violated the statute” (Matter of K & Z Place v Casale, 248 AD2d 539, 540). Present—Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Paris, J.), entered December 11, 2001, seeking to annul the determination that petitioners violated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law with costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: The determination that petitioners violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 is not supported by substantial evidence. At the administrative hearing, respondent presented convincing proof that several persons under 21 years of age were in petitioners’ establishment on the night of the alleged violation. Respondent, however, failed to establish that any alcoholic beverages were sold, delivered or given away to any underage patron. Thus, “there was a complete lack of evidence to support the determination that the petitioner [s] violated the statute” (Matter of K & Z Place v Casale, 248 AD2d 539, 540). Present—Green, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Tartous, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 295 A.D.2d 936, 744 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

295 A.D.2d 936 (Tartous, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related