Yates v. Mulrooney

157 Misc. 116, 282 N.Y.S. 956, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1507
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1935
StatusPublished

This text of 157 Misc. 116 (Yates v. Mulrooney) 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
Yates v. Mulrooney, 157 Misc. 116, 282 N.Y.S. 956, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1507 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Opinion

Horton, J.

This is an application for an order restraining the enforcement of a revocation order made by the State Liquor Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (245 App. Div. 146). The application is based upon the ground that petitioner is about to apply to the Appellate Division for reargument, or for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, if necessary, and that the enforcement of the revocation order should be ; stayed until the final determination of either of the above applications. The defendants’ counsel opposes this upon the ground that section 121 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law allows a stay in proceedings of this kind for a period not exceeding thirty days, and that the determination of the Appellate Division is not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

[117]*117This court is constrained to agree with counsel upon both of these questions. The statute specifically provides that no stay shall be granted pending the determination of the matter except on notice to the liquor authority and for a period not exceeding thirty days.” As the purpose of the Legislature was to provide for a summary determination of matters of this kind, the court believes that the statute does not authorize the granting of successive motions for stays for a period exceeding thirty days. Further, it seems to be well established that the Court of Appeals will not review the order of the Appellate Division dismissing the order of certiorari, because such dismissal is the result of an exercise of discretion by the court below. (See People ex rel. May v. Maynard, 160 N. Y. 453; People ex rel. Toms v. Board of Supervisors, 199 id. 150.)

The plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, denied.

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

Related

People Ex Rel. May v. . Maynard
55 N.E. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Yates v. Mulrooney
245 A.D. 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 Misc. 116, 282 N.Y.S. 956, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-mulrooney-nysupct-1935.