Wager v. State Liquor Authority
| Decision Date | 25 June 1958 |
| Citation | 4 N.Y.2d 465,151 N.E.2d 869,176 N.Y.S.2d 311 |
| Parties | , 151 N.E.2d 869 In the Matter of Samuel WAGER, Respondent, v. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Emanuel D. Black and Oscar A. Bloustein, New York City, for appellant.
Bernard Shatzkin, Brooklyn, and Leonard M. Speier, New York City, for respondent.
The petitioner, a licensed solicitor for a liquor wholesaler and an owner of a vending machine company and two automobile agencies, was denied an annual renewal of his permit on the ground that through the intermingling of the activities of the petitioner, he associated all his enterprises with the sale of liquor in a way 'not * * * conductive to the proper regulation and control of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law ( § 1 et seq.)'.
The discretionary power to determine whether or not a person may be licensed to traffic in alcoholic beverages or act as a solicitor by appropriate permit has been conferred upon the State Liquor Authority. The renewal of such licenses and permits is likewise vested by statute in the Authority. In considering the merits of this applicant for renewal of a license or permit, this 'application for a renewal is to be regarded in exactly the same manner as an application for a new license' (Restaurants & Patisseries Longchamps v. O'Connell, 271 App.Div. 684, 686, 68 N.Y.S.2d 298, 300, affirmed 296 N.Y. 888, 72 N.E.2d 616). In such cases the 'inquiry (of the court) is limited to a determination whether the record discloses circumstances which leave no possible scope for the reasonable exercise of that discretion' (Stracquadanio v. Department of Health of City of New York, 285 N.Y. 93, 95, 96, 32 N.E.2d 806, 808). Since 'There is no inherent right in a citizen' to engage in the business of selling intoxicating liquors (Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 91, 11 S.Ct. 13, 15, 34 L.Ed. 620; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N.Y. 509, 517), the test of the legality of the exercise of the discretionary power is solely whether the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously (Barry v. O'Connell, 303 N.Y. 46, 58, 59, 100 N.E.2d 127, 133, 134).
On the record presented the evidence of the close relationship between petitioner's activities as a permittee, vending machine operator and automobile dealer with retail liquor licensees, did provide a reasonable basis for the considered judgment of the Authority that petitioner's course of conduct was incompatible and inconsistent with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seidenberg v. McSORLEYS'OLD ALE HOUSE, INC.
...since license renewals are judged by the same standards applied to applications for new licenses, Wager v. State Liquor Authority, 4 N.Y.2d at 468, 176 N.Y.S.2d at 312, 151 N.E.2d at 870; Farina v. State Liquor Authority, 20 N.Y.2d 484, 491, 285 N.Y.S.2d 44, 49, 231 N.E.2d 748 (1967), a lic......
-
Circus Disco Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority
...(E. g., Matter of Sled Hill Cafe v. Hostetter, 22 N.Y.2d 607, 612, 294 N.Y.S.2d 497, 241 N.E.2d 714; Matter of Wager v. State Lig. Auth., 4 N.Y.2d 465, 468, 176 N.Y.S.2d 311, 151 N.E.2d 869.) In other words, unless it is clear that there is no substantial reason or basis for the exercise of......
-
Swalbach v. State Liquor Authority
...Consol.Laws, c. 3-B, §§ 2, 111; see, e. g., Rockower v. State Liquor Authority, 4 N.Y.2d 128, 173 N.Y.S.2d 5; Wager v. State Liquor Authority, 4 N.Y.2d 465, 176 N.Y.S.2d 311; Gambino v. State Liquor Authority, 4 A.D.2d 37, 162 N.Y.S.2d 723, affirmed 4 N.Y.2d 997, 177 N.Y.S.2d 513), but, obv......
-
Kahn, In re
...of 125 Bar Corporation, U.S.C.A., 24 N.Y.2d 174, 299 N.Y.S.2d 194, 247 N.E.2d 157, as well as Matter of Wager v. State Liquor Authority, 4 N.Y.2d 465, 176 N.Y.S.2d 311, 151 N.E.2d 869, and Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322, 287 N.Y.S.2d 647, 234 N.E.2d 679. If we analogize the findings of the......