Tim Rob Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tim Rob Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

50 A.D.2d 802, 375 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11614

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 802 (Tim Rob Bar, 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

Tim Rob Bar, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 50 A.D.2d 802, 375 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated July 7, 1975, and made after a hearing, which canceled petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, on the merits, without costs. There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination. That determination is not arbitrary or capricious. We find petitioner’s contention that the conduct complained of was constitutionally protected to be without merit. The case of Matter of Beal Props, v State Liq. Auth. (37 NY2d 861) is distinguishable. Here the hearing examiner specifically found a "lewd and indecent performance.” In Beal there was no such finding by the hearing examiner. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated July 7, 1975, and made after a hearing, which canceled petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, on the merits, without costs. There was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination. That determination is not arbitrary or capricious. We find petitioner’s contention that the conduct complained of was constitutionally protected to be without merit. The case of Matter of Beal Props, v State Liq. Auth. (37 NY2d 861) is distinguishable. Here the hearing examiner specifically found a "lewd and indecent performance.” In Beal there was no such finding by the hearing examiner. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 802, 375 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tim-rob-bar-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack