Warehouse Hoedown, Inc. v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warehouse Hoedown, Inc. v. Roth

53 A.D.2d 1064, 385 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15884

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 1064 (Warehouse Hoedown, Inc. v. Roth) 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 Hoedown, Inc. v. Roth, 53 A.D.2d 1064, 385 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term directed the State Liquor Authority to issue an on-premises liquor license to petitioner Warehouse Hoedown, Inc. The authority had previously disapproved petitioner’s application for a license based upon its conclusion that the husband of one of petitioner’s principals had a hidden interest in the application. The report of the authority’s investigation which requested further information with respect to the occupation and employment record of the husband and the source of the funds to be invested by his wife contains no evidence that such a hidden interest exists. Thus, the determination of the State Liquor Authority made without rational support in fact is arbitrary and capricious and was properly annulled by Special Term (Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N. Y., 24 NY2d 174, 178-179; Carriage Stop v Hostetter, 33 AD2d 894). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Mahoney, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term directed the State Liquor Authority to issue an on-premises liquor license to petitioner Warehouse Hoedown, Inc. The authority had previously disapproved petitioner’s application for a license based upon its conclusion that the husband of one of petitioner’s principals had a hidden interest in the application. The report of the authority’s investigation which requested further information with respect to the occupation and employment record of the husband and the source of the funds to be invested by his wife contains no evidence that such a hidden interest exists. Thus, the determination of the State Liquor Authority made without rational support in fact is arbitrary and capricious and was properly annulled by Special Term (Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N. Y., 24 NY2d 174, 178-179; Carriage Stop v Hostetter, 33 AD2d 894). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Mahoney, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 1064, 385 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warehouse-hoedown-inc-v-roth-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack