Opinion
May 3, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.).
The findings of the Administrative Law Judge, adopted by the State Liquor Authority, were supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). The defense of misidentification of the premises was meritless given petitioner's admissions as to the presence of the gambling device on the premises on the first date in question and its president's signed acknowledgment that liquor bottles were seized from these premises on the second date. There was also evidence that petitioner was aware that free games could be won on the coin-operated video game machine (see, Matter of Plato's Cave Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 68 N.Y.2d 791). In this matter involving multiple specifications, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.