From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lihs Beverages, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 11, 1994
202 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.

Present — Balio, J.P., Lawton, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) that it violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2). The SLA reversed the finding of no violation made by the Administrative Law Judge, and found that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2) by selling alcoholic beverages to "an intoxicated person or to a person actually under the influence of liquor". Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2) was amended in 1986, several years prior to the incident in question, to prohibit sales to "[a]ny visibly intoxicated person". The language relied upon by the SLA to determine petitioner's guilt was eliminated by that amendment (see, Donato v. McLaughlin, 195 A.D.2d 685; Blazynski v Gallagher, 187 A.D.2d 1018). Consequently, we annul the determination and remit the matter to the SLA to evaluate the proof adduced at the hearing using the correct legal standard.


Summaries of

Lihs Beverages, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 11, 1994
202 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Lihs Beverages, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Case Details

Full title:LIHS BEVERAGES, INC., Doing Business as EARL'S DISCOUNT LIQUOR STORE…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 465

Citing Cases

Buffalo Bail Bonds Agency Inc. v. Vullo

Here, however, respondent determined only that petitioners had knowingly employed the subject person, and…