Zucco Grocery Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zucco Grocery Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

203 A.D.2d 120, 610 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865

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

DecidedApril 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 120 (Zucco Grocery Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) 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

Zucco Grocery Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 203 A.D.2d 120, 610 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Philip Modesto, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which annulled respondent’s determination revoking petitioner’s liquor license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s liquor license was properly annulled on the ground that respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that it gave petitioner notice of the hearing (see, Bernardo v Barrett, 87 AD2d 832, 833, affd 57 NY2d 1006). Respondent’s own papers show that the notice it prepared for petitioner’s principal was mailed to an incorrect address, and that the return receipt attached to the notice respondent mailed to petitioner’s premises was not signed by petitioner’s principal. The IAS Court also aptly found that respondent adduced no evidence to show that the person who signed the receipt was known to petitioner’s principal. Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Philip Modesto, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which annulled respondent’s determination revoking petitioner’s liquor license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s liquor license was properly annulled on the ground that respondent failed to meet its burden of proof that it gave petitioner notice of the hearing (see, Bernardo v Barrett, 87 AD2d 832, 833, affd 57 NY2d 1006). Respondent’s own papers show that the notice it prepared for petitioner’s principal was mailed to an incorrect address, and that the return receipt attached to the notice respondent mailed to petitioner’s premises was not signed by petitioner’s principal. The IAS Court also aptly found that respondent adduced no evidence to show that the person who signed the receipt was known to petitioner’s principal. Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 120, 610 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zucco-grocery-corp-v-new-york-state-liquor-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack