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

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 936 (Tartous, Inc. 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 936, 744 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tartous-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack