Opinion
June 15, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).
We agree with the IAS Court that respondent's denial of petitioner's application "did not simply rest upon a general objection to unsavory past management" of the premises, but legitimately took into account petitioner's failure to present a security plan adequately addressing respondent's security concerns. The efficacy of such operational plans is, of course, subject to respondent's evaluation, not the court's (cf., Matter of 135 Rest. Corp. v. State Liq. Auth., 25 A.D.2d 651, 652).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.