Bizarre, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority
| Decision Date | 18 April 1968 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y.S.2d 75,29 A.D.2d 500 |
| Parties | Application of the BIZARRE, INC., Petitioner, v. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY and New York City Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Monroe I. Katcher, II, New York City, for petitioner.
Herbert Rosenstein, New York City, of counsel (Hyman Amsel, New York City), for respondents.
Before BOTEIN, P.J., and STEVENS, CAPOZZOLI, McGIVERN and RABIN, JJ.
Petitioner herein, Bizarre, Inc., is a small family owned corporation, all the stock of which ostensibly is in the ownership of one Renee Allmen, daughter-in-law and wife, respectively, of Sadie Rickoff and Rick Allmen, the two corporate principals. The business of petitioner is the running of a coffee house in the Greenwich Village area, Manhattan.
Petitioner seeks a Special On-Premises Liquor license. Having been refused such a license by the New York City Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in 1966, the instant application was brought on, listing for the first time the presence and interests of the two principals, the husband and mother-in-law of the sole stockholder. This application too was rejected because of the prior records of the said two principals; because the granting of such a license would 'not be conducive to proper regulation and control', and because in the 'highly sensitive' area of the Village, in the view of the Authority there are already a sufficiency of licenses.
Thereafter, pursuant to statute, petitioner requested a hearing by the State Liquor Authority. Such a hearing ensued before a Deputy Commissioner, and on March 30, 1967, a Deputy Commissioner of the Authority notified the petitioner the application had been disapproved. This was followed by a formal notice dated April 4, 1967 purporting to be signed by the Chairman of the Authority, to the same effect, setting forth a listing of previous summonses issued to the mother-in-law, Sadie Rickoff, for violations of the Administrative Code, and of others of a technical character. Against the son, Rick Allmen, the Authority listed an arrest for extortion in 1949, of which he was acquitted, other technical violations and a cumulative series of traffic fines. The enumeration of these infractions indicated to the Authority that these two principals were not law observing persons. Finally, the rejection stated that the premises were in 'an area which is sensitive' and neither public advantage nor convenience would be served by an approval.
Without depreciating in any way the reasons or the conclusions of the Authority, we have concluded that irregularities necessitate the determination under review be remitted to the Authority. Initially, petitioner's license concededly was never in fact passed upon by members or any one member of the Liquor Authority, although § 54...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riverhead Park Corp. v. Cardinale
...authority or by implication, delegate the performance of ministerial acts to an agent.” Id. (citing Matter of Bizarre, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 29 A.D.2d 500, 289 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1968); Weinberg v. Town of Clarkstown, 78 Misc.2d 464, 357 N.Y.S.2d 332 (N.Y.Sup.1973)). Under New York law,......
-
Washington County Cease, Inc. v. Persico
...meaning must be considered as having imperative or mandatory effect in the light of the statutory context. Bizarre, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 29 A.D.2d 500, 289 N.Y.S.2d 75; Appeal Denied, 22 N.Y.2d 721, 292 N.Y.S.2d 106, 239 N.E.2d 203, is more to the point. In Bizarre, supra, the op......
-
Nemeroff Realty Corp. v. Kerr
...ordinance. In brief, the Town could not delegate its power beyond the measure granted by the Legislature (Matter of Bizarre, Inc. v. State Liq. Auth., 29 A.D.2d 500, 289 N.Y.S.2d 75; 1 N.Y.Jur., Administrative Law, §§ 79, 83; cf. Ledgering v. State, 63 Wash.2d 94, 385 P.2d 522). That power ......
-
Sound Distributing Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority
...filed with the Secretary of State as required by article IV, section 8 of the New York Constitution (Matter of Bizarre, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 29 A.D.2d 500, 502, 289 N.Y.S.2d 75, appeal dismissed 22 N.Y.2d 721, 292 N.Y.S.2d 106, 239 N.E.2d 203). In 1968, apparently in response to ......