Opinion
July 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.).
Ordered that, on the Court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We are in agreement with the Supreme Court that the penalty imposed by the New York State Liquor Authority (hereinafter Liquor Authority), i.e., revocation of the petitioner's liquor license, is disproportionate to the misconduct in this case and shocking to one's sense of fairness, especially in light of the petitioner's unblemished record in the past (see, Matter of 86 Flushing Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 169 A.D.2d 767; Matter of Club Illusion v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A.D.2d 865; see also, Matter of Tom's Log Cabin v. New York State Liq. Auth., 186 A.D.2d 203; Matter of Roan Amber Inn v. New York State Liq. Auth., 184 A.D.2d 770). In addition, although the petitioner's bartender improperly denied the Liquor Authority's agents permission to inspect the premises pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (15), under the facts of this case, this violation does not justify the severity of the penalty that was imposed (see, Matter of Club Illusion v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A.D.2d 865, supra). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.