Opinion
April 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oswego County, Miller, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: After the president of petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of a Federal indictment charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the New York State Liquor Authority (Authority) imposed a penalty of a 10-day deferred license suspension and a $1,000 bond claim upon the petitioner. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by petitioner, Supreme Court annulled the Authority's determination and prohibited any future use by the Authority of facts arising out of the president's conviction. That was error. The determination that petitioner's conduct, by its president, was of such improper nature that it warranted suspension of its license was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence. Rule 36.1 ( 9 NYCRR 53.1 [n]) gives the Authority power to revoke, cancel or suspend a license for improper conduct (see, Matter of 17 Cameron St. Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 48 N.Y.2d 509). By his "no contest" plea, the president admitted the facts as charged (see, Matter of Barotti v New York State Liq. Auth., 82 A.D.2d 1004; Matter of Scranton Volunteer Fire Co. v Ball, 37 A.D.2d 757, affd 30 N.Y.2d 589, rearg denied 30 N.Y.2d 880).
Petitioner's reliance upon Correction Law § 752 is misplaced because that statute does not require a direct relationship between the improper conduct and the licensed activity where the discipline imposed is upon one already licensed (Matter of Pietranico v Ambach, 82 A.D.2d 625, affd 55 N.Y.2d 861; Matter of Mosner v Ambach, 66 A.D.2d 912). It is by now well settled that a licensee may be disciplined for conduct extraneous to the licensed activity (Daniels v McLaughlin, 82 A.D.2d 905; see also, Matter of Bevacqua v Sobol, 176 A.D.2d 1; Matter of Pietranico v Ambach, supra). The fact that the president received a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities does not preclude the imposition of a disciplinary penalty (see, Matter of Alaimo v Ambach, 91 A.D.2d 695, 696, lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 607). Finally, the penalty imposed was a reasonable exercise of the Authority's discretion.