Toth & Watanabe, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toth & Watanabe, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

191 A.D.2d 218, 594 N.Y.S.2d 199

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 218 (Toth & Watanabe, 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

Toth & Watanabe, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 191 A.D.2d 218, 594 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Finger-hood, J.), entered June 29, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, and directed respondent to issue the license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner’s lack of experience would prevent it from effectively running a bar is mere speculation that has no rational basis in the record (see, Matter of Sled Hill Cafe v Hostetter, 22 NY2d 607, 612-613), which demonstrates that three of the four principals operated their own business, that one of the principals ran a restaurant that sold liquor, and that petitioner hired a general manager with extensive liquor experience. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Finger-hood, J.), entered June 29, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s denial of petitioner’s application for an on-premises liquor license, and directed respondent to issue the license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner’s lack of experience would prevent it from effectively running a bar is mere speculation that has no rational basis in the record (see, Matter of Sled Hill Cafe v Hostetter, 22 NY2d 607, 612-613), which demonstrates that three of the four principals operated their own business, that one of the principals ran a restaurant that sold liquor, and that petitioner hired a general manager with extensive liquor experience. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 218, 594 N.Y.S.2d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toth-watanabe-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack