From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Colucci v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1954
283 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

May 17, 1954.

Present — Nolan, P.J., Adel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ. [See post, pp. 1058, 1103.]


Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, in the nature of mandamus, for an order directing the respondents, who constitute the State Liquor Authority, to rescind their order, under section 113 Alco. Bev. Cont. of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, against licensing the subject premises for a period of two years, and to annul their determination denying applications for licenses for the said premises. At Special Term the petition was dismissed on the grounds of failure to show a clear legal right to any relief and that operation of section 113 does not affect petitioners' rights nor entitle them to attack the constitutionality of the section. Order, made on reargument, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. We are of the opinion that section 113 Alco. Bev. Cont. of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is constitutional. While the appeal in Matter of Colucci v. O'Connell ( 281 App. Div. 907) was decided without opinion, the question of constitutionality of the statute was considered and passed upon.


Summaries of

Matter of Colucci v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1954
283 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Matter of Colucci v. O'Connell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of VINCENT J. COLUCCI et al., Appellants, against JOHN F…

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

Date published: May 17, 1954

Citations

283 App. Div. 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

Matter of Franklin v. State Liquor Authority

We agree with the State Liquor Authority that the petitioner, as the landlord of the premises, was not…

Matter of Barotti v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth

Moreover, separate orders were filed, and only the order in the revocation proceeding contains the two-year…