Weber v. Chrisamalis

New York Supreme Court

Weber v. Chrisamalis

177 Misc. 772, 30 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2333

DecidedOctober 2, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 177 Misc. 772 (Weber v. Chrisamalis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weber v. Chrisamalis, 177 Misc. 772, 30 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2333 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Koch, J.

A “ street or avenue ” is certainly not the same as a “ square ” in the ordinary acceptance of the use of those terms. [773]*773For many years before the designation as Westchester square of the location involved herein, Westchester avenue and East Tremont avenue were “ streets ” or “ avenues ” in continuous and active use. The fact that they intersected, together with other geographical factors incident to the location, made it seem desirable perhaps to give the location an additional distinguishing appellation. This did not in any manner change or obliterate either of the two thoroughfares which continue to run, as before, up to, through, and beyond the so-called “ square.” The premises of the respondent Chrisamalis are, therefore, not “ located within 1,500 feet of any premises holding a similar license on the same street or avenue ” and the State Liquor Authority in awarding a license to Chrisamalis acted within the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The motion is accordingly denied. Settle order.

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

Koch, J.

A “ street or avenue ” is certainly not the same as a “ square ” in the ordinary acceptance of the use of those terms. [773]*773For many years before the designation as Westchester square of the location involved herein, Westchester avenue and East Tremont avenue were “ streets ” or “ avenues ” in continuous and active use. The fact that they intersected, together with other geographical factors incident to the location, made it seem desirable perhaps to give the location an additional distinguishing appellation. This did not in any manner change or obliterate either of the two thoroughfares which continue to run, as before, up to, through, and beyond the so-called “ square.” The premises of the respondent Chrisamalis are, therefore, not “ located within 1,500 feet of any premises holding a similar license on the same street or avenue ” and the State Liquor Authority in awarding a license to Chrisamalis acted within the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 105 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. The motion is accordingly denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Misc. 772, 30 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-chrisamalis-nysupct-1941.