Theodore Polon, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Theodore Polon, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

54 A.D.2d 910, 388 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14748

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated November 17, 1975, which, after a hearing at which petitioner pleaded "No Contest” to certain charges, suspended its retail liquor store license for a stated period and imposed a bond forfeiture of $1,000, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. While the penalty imposed was extremely severe, it was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to shock one’s sense of justice (Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y, 4 AD2d 361). The scope of review in matters of this nature is very narrow, since a reviewing court must accord great weight to the determination of the administrative agency which imposed the penalty (Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, 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 respondent’s determination, dated November 17, 1975, which, after a hearing at which petitioner pleaded "No Contest” to certain charges, suspended its retail liquor store license for a stated period and imposed a bond forfeiture of $1,000, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. While the penalty imposed was extremely severe, it was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to shock one’s sense of justice (Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y, 4 AD2d 361). The scope of review in matters of this nature is very narrow, since a reviewing court must accord great weight to the determination of the administrative agency which imposed the penalty (Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Theodore Polon, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 54 A.D.2d 910, 388 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

54 A.D.2d 910 (Theodore Polon, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related