Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

269 A.D.2d 278, 703 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2022

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 278 (Warehouse Entertainment, 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

Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 269 A.D.2d 278, 703 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 11, 1998, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), by suffering and permitting its premises to become disorderly, and Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 114 (6), by failing to conspicuously post its liquor license, and, for those violations, required petitioner to either pay a $2,000 civil penalty or suffer a ten-day license revocation, and to forfeit its bond in the amount of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered February 5, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s finding that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) by permitting its premises to become disorderly. Specifically, there was evidence that petitioner’s security measures on January 17, 1998 were inadequate and that, on that date, the premises was overcrowded and became the scene of a shooting and that, in the aftermath of the shooting, the premises became disorderly. There was also evidence that, by the time of the incident, the premises had been overcrowded for a sufficient length of time that petitioner’s manager and/or owner should have known of the condition and taken measures to ameliorate it so as to reduce the considerable potential, subsequently realized, for disorder (cf., Matter of Moonwalkers Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 250 AD2d 428). Furthermore, petitioner’s violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 114 (6) was sufficiently established by uncontroverted hearsay evidence of petitioner’s failure to conspicuously post its license (Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741; cf., Matter of Ridge, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 625).

° Under the circumstances of record, the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated December 11, 1998, which found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), by suffering and permitting its premises to become disorderly, and Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 114 (6), by failing to conspicuously post its liquor license, and, for those violations, required petitioner to either pay a $2,000 civil penalty or suffer a ten-day license revocation, and to forfeit its bond in the amount of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered February 5, 1999) dismissed, without costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s finding that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) by permitting its premises to become disorderly. Specifically, there was evidence that petitioner’s security measures on January 17, 1998 were inadequate and that, on that date, the premises was overcrowded and became the scene of a shooting and that, in the aftermath of the shooting, the premises became disorderly. There was also evidence that, by the time of the incident, the premises had been overcrowded for a sufficient length of time that petitioner’s manager and/or owner should have known of the condition and taken measures to ameliorate it so as to reduce the considerable potential, subsequently realized, for disorder (cf., Matter of Moonwalkers Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 250 AD2d 428). Furthermore, petitioner’s violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 114 (6) was sufficiently established by uncontroverted hearsay evidence of petitioner’s failure to conspicuously post its license (Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741; cf., Matter of Ridge, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 625).

° Under the circumstances of record, the penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 278, 703 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warehouse-entertainment-inc-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack