Steiert v. Epstein

• Decision Date: 18 December 1961
• Citation: 222 N.Y.S.2d 824,15 A.D.2d 532
• Parties: In the Matter of John W. STEIERT, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Martin C. EPSTEIN et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 824

222 N.Y.S.2d 824

15 A.D.2d 532

In the Matter of John W. STEIERT, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Martin C. EPSTEIN et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 18, 1961.

Alfred deF. Licato, New York City, for appellants; John J. Hyland, New York City, of counsel.

James P. Edstrom, Glen Cove, for respondent.

Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, PETTE and BRENNAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the State Liquor Authority, denying petitioner's application to transfer a license to sell liquor for on-premises consumption, from 225 Sea Cliff Avenue in Sea Cliff, to 248 Sea Cliff Avenue in Sea Cliff, the Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 23, 1961, which granted the application, annulled the determination and directed approval of the application.

Order affirmed, without costs.

The Authority, after considering the report of an investigative interview, overruled the recommendation of the local board which had recommended approval of the application and determined that the 'petition to remove should be and is denied for the reason that the proposed location is located in close proximity to and within approximately 350 feet of' a church; that the 'pastor and other officials of [the church] have interposed objections to permitting [the] restaurant liquor licensee to remove to within such close proximity to the church;' and, hence, that 'it would not serve public convenience and advantage to permit this removal.'

When the reasons for the Authority's determination are enumerated and when such reasons are challenged, they will be scrutinized to ascertain if the conclusions reached were arbitrary and without reasonable basis in law or fact. Under the circumstances herein, enumeration of the reasons is tantamount to definition, explanation and restriction (Matter of Wanetick v. State Liquor Auth., 8 A.D.2d 706, 185 N.Y.S.2d 690; see, e.g., Matter of Winkler v. State Liquor Auth., 3 A.D.2d 1011, 164 N.Y.S.2d 456, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 856, 173 N.Y.S.2d 822).

A retail license for on-premises consumption may be granted when the premises are more than 200 feet from a church (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 64). Although the sale of intoxicating liquors is strictly regulated, it is permitted by the laws of this State and by the Constitution of the United States. In our opinion, it is clear that the application here was disapproved because some church officials objected to the transfer. 'The Authority is vested with wide powers and broad discretion. But the powers...