From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

3275 Byron Avenue Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 1990
161 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 7, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner pleaded "no contest" to a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) by maintaining a Joker Poker machine in operation on the licensed premises. The only issue involved is whether the penalty imposed by the New York State Liquor Authority — a 15-day suspension of the petitioner's liquor license and a $1,000 bond forfeiture — is a reasonable exercise of discretion. In view of all the circumstances, including the petitioner's virtually unblemished record of compliance with the law, we find that the Supreme Court properly vacated the penalty as excessive (see, e.g., Matter of PJP Tavern Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 152 A.D.2d 578; Matter of La Cucina Mary Ann, Inc. v. State Liq. Auth., 150 A.D.2d 450; Matter of MNDN Rest. v. Gazzara, 128 A.D.2d 781, 782). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

3275 Byron Avenue Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 1990
161 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

3275 Byron Avenue Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of 3275 BYRON AVENUE CORP., Doing Business as JONES BEACH…

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

Date published: May 7, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 389

Citing Cases

Matter of Pyramid Lounge v. N.Y. State Liquor

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by adding to the end of the decretal paragraph…

Matter of Northwood Foods v. N.Y. St. Liquor

We note that the criminal charges against the employee were ultimately dismissed and the employee was…