From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Application of Waldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 20, 2001
281 A.D.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 20, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 30, 2000, which granted petitioners neighborhood residents' application to annul respondent State Liquor Authority's determination to issue respondent-appellant restaurant a liquor license, directed the Liquor Authority "to suspend and revoke" any liquor license previously issued to appellant, and remanded the matter to the Liquor Authority for a statement of reasons why granting appellant a liquor license would be in the public interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Craig J. Albert, for petitioners-respondents.

William P. Maloney, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Ellerin, J.P., Lerner, Saxe, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.


Judicial review of a Liquor Authority determination to grant a license is subject to the court's "duty to make certain that the administrative official has not acted . . . in disregard of the standard prescribed by the legislature" (Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Bohlinger, 308 N.Y. 174, 183). As the motion court explained, and as all concerned acknowledge, due to the proximity of other licensed premises, the Authority was subject to a statutory mandate to deny appellant's application for a license (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64[b]), unless it found that granting the license would be in the public interest (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64[f]), in which event it "shall state and file in its office its reasons" for so finding (id.). Here, in its entirety, the Authority's statement of reasons is: "The Authority has considered that the applicant will operate these premises as a bona fide restaurant featuring Cuban cuisine. Accordingly, the Authority finds that approval will be in the public interest." This perfunctory recitation fails to comply with the requirement that the Authority state its reasons for concluding that it would be in the public interest. Obviously, something more is needed (see, e.g., Cleveland Place Neighborhood Assn. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 268 A.D.2d 6, 12).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Application of Waldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 20, 2001
281 A.D.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In re Application of Waldman

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF STUART WALDMAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, FOR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 20, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 142

Citing Cases

Senter v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth.

There, as here, the issuance of the license would permit a previously vacant space to be put to a useful…

Matter Alliance v. Liquor Autho

Nevertheless, petitioners' reliance on our decisions in Matter of Waldman v New York State Liq. Auth. ( 281…