Tirconail Tavern Corp. v. Sarafan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tirconail Tavern Corp. v. Sarafan

41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4343

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

DecidedMay 29, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 966 (Tirconail Tavern Corp. v. Sarafan) 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

Tirconail Tavern Corp. v. Sarafan, 41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondents’ determination, dated September 7, 1972, which (1) found that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises on May 13,1971, (2) suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for a period of 10 days and (3) imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs. The circumstances surrounding the one instance of gambling on the premises were not such as to warrant the implication that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises within the meaning of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control' Law (Matter of Kline v. State Liq. Auth., 40 A D 2d 855). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondents’ determination, dated September 7, 1972, which (1) found that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises on May 13,1971, (2) suspended petitioner’s special on-premises liquor license for a period of 10 days and (3) imposed a $1,000 bond claim. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs. The circumstances surrounding the one instance of gambling on the premises were not such as to warrant the implication that petitioner had suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises within the meaning of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control' Law (Matter of Kline v. State Liq. Auth., 40 A D 2d 855). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 966, 344 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirconail-tavern-corp-v-sarafan-nyappdiv-1973.