Tripple Inn, Inc. v. Kennedy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tripple Inn, Inc. v. Kennedy

3 A.D.2d 907, 162 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5409

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

DecidedMay 21, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 907 (Tripple Inn, Inc. v. Kennedy) 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

Tripple Inn, Inc. v. Kennedy, 3 A.D.2d 907, 162 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

The determination of the police commissioner insofar as it finds petitioner guilty of violation of the specification (1, subd. [a]) that he “Did suffer and [908]*908permit a known criminal * * * to frequent and remain on premises daily during a period of eight days, from October 20th to October 29th, 1956” is confirmed. We hold that the respondent has failed to adduce facts necessary to sustain the violations of specifications 1 and 2 (b), and the determination with respect thereto is annulled. Prom the record, it would appear that the licensee operated the premises under a cabaret license from January, 1956 to November, 1956, and that prior thereto the president of the petitioner corporation had been a licensee of the State Liquor Authority for 11% years, and never had a license suspended or revoked. If the record is correct, in view of our holding, it may well be that the punishment imposed is excessive and an abuse of discretion. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a.) The proceeding is, therefore, remitted to the police commissioner for a reconsideration of the order directing a revocation of the license and, as modified, the determination is confirmed (Matter of Rodriguez v. Rohan, 3 A D 2d 648). Concur — Peek, P. J., Botein, Valente and McNally, JJ.; Prank, J., dissents and votes to annul the determination of the police commissioner on authority of Matter of O’Day v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 644, affd. 308 N. Y. 769. Settle order on notice.

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

The determination of the police commissioner insofar as it finds petitioner guilty of violation of the specification (1, subd. [a]) that he “Did suffer and [908]*908permit a known criminal * * * to frequent and remain on premises daily during a period of eight days, from October 20th to October 29th, 1956” is confirmed. We hold that the respondent has failed to adduce facts necessary to sustain the violations of specifications 1 and 2 (b), and the determination with respect thereto is annulled. Prom the record, it would appear that the licensee operated the premises under a cabaret license from January, 1956 to November, 1956, and that prior thereto the president of the petitioner corporation had been a licensee of the State Liquor Authority for 11% years, and never had a license suspended or revoked. If the record is correct, in view of our holding, it may well be that the punishment imposed is excessive and an abuse of discretion. (Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a.) The proceeding is, therefore, remitted to the police commissioner for a reconsideration of the order directing a revocation of the license and, as modified, the determination is confirmed (Matter of Rodriguez v. Rohan, 3 A D 2d 648). Concur — Peek, P. J., Botein, Valente and McNally, JJ.; Prank, J., dissents and votes to annul the determination of the police commissioner on authority of Matter of O’Day v. O’Connell, 283 App. Div. 644, affd. 308 N. Y. 769. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 907, 162 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tripple-inn-inc-v-kennedy-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack