Manhattan Scene, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority
| Decision Date | 12 July 1977 |
| Citation | 397 N.Y.S.2d 495,58 A.D.2d 1010 |
| Parties | Application of the MANHATTAN SCENE, INC., d/b/a Uncle Sam's, Petitioner, v. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY of the State of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Saperston, Day & Radler, Frank Gaglione, Buffalo, for petitioner.
Warren B. Pesetsky, New York City, Thomas E. Butler, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before MOULE, J. P., and CARDAMONE, HANCOCK, DENMAN and WITMER, JJ.
Petitioner is the holder of a liquor license permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption at Uncle Sam's, a nightclub located in Cheektowaga, New York. Following an altercation in the parking lot on August 25, 1975 in which two patrons were allegedly beaten by club bouncers, the State Liquor Authority (SLA) commenced proceedings to revoke petitioner's license. A hearing was subsequently held and, based upon the findings of the hearing officer, the SLA suspended petitioner's license for 30 days (15 days forthwith and 15 days deferred) and ordered forfeiture of a $1,000.00 bond. Thereafter, seeking to review that determinatio petitioner commenced this Article 78 proceeding which was transferred to us pursuant to CPLR 7804.
The complaint served by the SLA alleged a violation of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n) which prohibits "improper conduct by the licensee or permittee and if a corporation, by an officer, director or person directly or indirectly owning or controlling 10 percent or more of its stock." Although the SLA alleged such misconduct only on the part of an employee and not an officer or director, that did not render the complaint defective on its face. It was undisputed that the named employee was an assistant manager of the club and, as such, his conduct may be imputed to the licensee (see, Matter of Playboy Club v. State Liquor Authority, 23 N.Y.2d 544, 297 N.Y.S.2d 926, 245 N.E.2d 697; see also, Matter of Cuti v. State Liquor Authority, 50 A.D.2d 1044, 377 N.Y.S.2d 738). Nor was the SLA required to prove a series of incidents of disorderliness in order to sustain the charge. Where, as here, the licensee's agent is instrumental in creating the disorder, it is unnecessary to establish a foreseeable pattern of conduct and a single incident will suffice (Matter of Club 95, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 23 N.Y.2d 784, 297 N.Y.S.2d 147, 244 N.E.2d 713; Matter of Cuti v. State Liquor Authority, supra).
With respect to the question of substantial evidence, it is well settled that issues of credibility are for the administrative agency to decide and where there is sufficient evidence to support either of two opposing conclusions, the agency's assessment of the veracity of the witnesses must be upheld (Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Inc. v. Milowe, 1
...determination must be upheld (Matter of Collins v. Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269, 379 N.Y.S.2d 733, 342 N.E.2d 524; Manhattan Scene, Inc. v. State Liq. Auth., 58 A.D.2d 1010, 397 N.Y.S.2d 495). However, since the majority opinion does not state that the challenged result is Not supported by substanti......
-
Awrich Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
...147, 244 N.E.2d 713; Matter of Falso v. State Liq. Auth., 43 N.Y.2d 721, 401 N.Y.S.2d 484, 372 N.E.2d 325; Manhattan Scene v. State Liq. Auth., 58 A.D.2d 1010, 397 N.Y.S.2d 495; Matter of Cuti v. Roth, 50 A.D.2d 1044, 377 N.Y.S.2d At the hearing conducted by the respondent, Taylor testified......
- Kunerth v. Kunerth
-
Smith v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal
...for the administrative agency's resolution (see, Matter of Cora v. Joy, 81 A.D.2d 666, 438 N.Y.S.2d 354; Matter of Manhattan Scene v. State Liq. Auth., 58 A.D.2d 1010, 397 N.Y.S.2d 495). Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, we cannot conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, t......