Watinsky v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watinsky v. O'Connell

271 A.D.2d 973

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 973 (Watinsky v. O'Connell) 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

Watinsky v. O'Connell, 271 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, final order annulling the determination of the State Liquor Authority, which determination is a refusal of a retail wine and liquor license to respondents, and directing issuance of a license, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, without costs. On the facts in this record, it may not be held as a matter of law that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the authority, to whom the power to pass on the matter is given by statute. (Matter of Glintenkamp v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 795, affd. 296 N. Y. 806; Matter of McKeon v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 897; Matter of Finn v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 896.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Nolan, JJ., concur; Aldrich, J., deceased.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, final order annulling the determination of the State Liquor Authority, which determination is a refusal of a retail wine and liquor license to respondents, and directing issuance of a license, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, without costs. On the facts in this record, it may not be held as a matter of law that the State Liquor Authority acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith. The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the authority, to whom the power to pass on the matter is given by statute. (Matter of Glintenkamp v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 795, affd. 296 N. Y. 806; Matter of McKeon v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 897; Matter of Finn v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 896.) Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston and Nolan, JJ., concur; Aldrich, J., deceased.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watinsky-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack