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

292 A.D.2d 536, 739 N.Y.S.2d 291, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2946

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the New York State Liquor Authority, both dated December 20, 2000, adopting the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, which (1) determined that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and imposed a 10-day license suspension and a $4,000 civil penalty, and (2) determined that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) and imposed license revocation plus $1,000 bond claim and placed a two-year proscription on relicensing.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determinations that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and § 106 (6) (see, Matter of Vin Sam Wine & Liq. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 280 AD2d 607; Matter of New Stratford Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 454; O.F.B. Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 212 AD2d 373). The penalties imposed were not excessive. Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, 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 two determinations of the New York State Liquor Authority, both dated December 20, 2000, adopting the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, which (1) determined that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and imposed a 10-day license suspension and a $4,000 civil penalty, and (2) determined that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) and imposed license revocation plus $1,000 bond claim and placed a two-year proscription on relicensing.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

There is substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determinations that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and § 106 (6) (see, Matter of Vin Sam Wine & Liq. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 280 AD2d 607; Matter of New Stratford Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 454; O.F.B. Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 212 AD2d 373). The penalties imposed were not excessive. Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 292 A.D.2d 536, 739 N.Y.S.2d 291, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

292 A.D.2d 536 (Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related