Glenram Wine & Liquor Corp. v. O'Connell
| Decision Date | 29 May 1946 |
| Citation | 295 N.Y. 336,67 N.E.2d 570 |
| Parties | GLENRAM WINE & LIQUOR CORPORATION v. O'CONNELL et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Proceeding in the matter of Glenram Wine & Liquor Corporation against John F. O'Connell and others, constituting the State Liquor Authority. From an order of the Appellate Division 269 App.Div. 1004, 58 N.Y.S.2d 475, which annulled on the law and facts a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated March 14, 1945, canceling a wholesale liquor license issued to petitioner and ordering forfeiture of a bond filed by petitioner with Glens Falls Indemnity Company as surety and a determination dated May 11, 1945, disapproving an application by petitioner for renewal of its wholesale liquor license and which remitted the matter to the State Liquor Authority for consideration of petitioner's application for a wholesale liquor license, the State Liquor Authority appeals and also appeals separately from the order of the appellate division with a stipulation by the Authority that, upon affirmance of the order appealed from, order absolute might be rendered against the Authority in favor of petitioner.
Order reversed in part and the matter remitted to State Liquor Authority for further proceedings not inconsistent with opinion, and otherwise first appeal and separate appeal with stipulation for order absolute dismissed. Alvin McKinley Sylvester, Harry F. Karst, and Jack Reinstein, all of New York City, for appellants.
Julian Jawitz and Daniel J. Riesner, both of New York City, for petitioner, respondent.
George F. Blake, of New York City, for Glens Falls Indemnity Co., respondent.
We think the questions presented on this appeal are of importance in the administration of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, Consol.Laws, c. 3-B, and in the future conduct of the business of respondent and other licensees under said law. Accordingly, we reject the suggestion that the appeal should be dismissed as moot. Matter of Lyon Co. v. Morris, 261 N. Y. 497, 499, 185 N.E. 711.
After a hearing in connection with proceedings to revoke petitioner-respondent's wholesale liquor license, the State Liquor Authority found that the licensee sold liquor at prices in excess of the ceiling prices fixed by the Office of Price Administration; that the licensee and one of its officers and two employees were convicted for these offenses; that the licensee violated section 104, subdivision 10, of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by failing to keep on its licensed premises adequate and accurate books and records of all transactions involving the business transacted by the licensee, and that the licensee, in violation of section 101-a, subdivision 2, of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, made a sale on credit to one F. Kealty. There were further findings that the conduct of the licensee and of its officers was not conductive to the proper regulation and control of the traffic in alcoholic beverages and not in furtherance of the objects of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and that, by reason of its conduct and the conduct of its officers and employees, the licensee was unfit to hold a license to traffic in alcoholic beverages.
There was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the State Liquor Authority with reference to inaccuracy and inadequacy of the books, the licensee having pleaded guilty to sales above ceiling prices which were entered on the books at ceiling prices. There was also evidence of a sale on credit to F. Kealty of one case of whiskey for $34.03, and the licensee's credit manager admitted that a mistake had been made in shipping the merchandise on credit. However, it does not appear that the sale was knowingly, willfully or intentionally made after receipt of a delinquent list showing the purchaser to be delinquent.
The proceedings before the State Liquor Authority were denominated ‘proceedings to revoke’ the license in the notice of hearing served by order of the Liquor Authority, in the answer of the authority and in the rules and statement of causes for revocation annexed to the answer. The determination of the authority was that the license be cancelled as of February 28, 1945, and surrendered to the authority. Pet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleaver, In re
...Otterbein v. Babor & Cameau Co. (1936) 272 N.Y. 149, 152, 5 N.E.2d 71, 72, 107 A.L.R. 1510; Glenram Wine & Liquor Corporation v. O'Connell (1946) 295 N.Y. 336, 341--342, 67 N.E.2d 570, 572--573; Federal L. Bk. v. Farmer's Mut. Ins. Assn. (1934) 217 Iowa 1098, 1101--1102, 253 N.W. 52, 54--55......
-
Loomis, Inc. v. Cudahy
...and 'cancellation' are closely synonymous; to revoke means 'to annul, repeal, rescind, cancel.' Glenram Wine & Liquor Corp. v. O'Connell, 295 N.Y. 336, 67 N.E.2d 570 (1946). [104 Idaho 109] agreement ab initio, i.e., fraud, mistake, or dures......
-
Black River Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N.Y. 475
...nor did we deem it a situation requiring special treatment ( Matter of Rosenbluth v. Finkelstein, 300 N.Y. 402; Matter of Glenram Wine & Liq. Corp. v. O'Connell, 295 N.Y. 336). At the same time we declined to pass upon the constitutionality of the Stokes Act as such question was not then be......
-
Beer Garden, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
...SLA may have to delineate "for cause" grounds for revocation not specified in the statute (see, e.g., Matter of Glenram Wine & Liq. Corp. v. O'Connell, 295 N.Y. 336, 342, 67 N.E.2d 570; Matter of Lehama Rest. v. O'Connell, 280 App.Div. 796, 113 N.Y.S.2d 338), that general authority cannot o......