Thibault v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thibault v. O'Connell

277 A.D.2d 928

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

DecidedJune 27, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 928 (Thibault v. O'Connell) 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

Thibault v. O'Connell, 277 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority denying a license to petitioners for the sale of liquor at retail, for consumption on the premises, which proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department by order of the Albany County Special Term. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the determination that no restaurant, as the same is defined in subdivision 27 of section 3 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, is being conducted on the premises. There is no indication that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or in bad faith. Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Present— Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority denying a license to petitioners for the sale of liquor at retail, for consumption on the premises, which proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department by order of the Albany County Special Term. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the determination that no restaurant, as the same is defined in subdivision 27 of section 3 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, is being conducted on the premises. There is no indication that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or in bad faith. Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Present— Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thibault-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1950.