Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liquor Auth

6 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Cosmo. Cat. v. Hostetter

    42 Misc. 2d 714 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)

    . The rule generally applicable where, following a determination by an administrative body under governing law which does not provide for a rehearing or reconsideration, the applicant seeks reconsideration, is that his time to commence a proceeding to review the determination is not extended by his voluntary attempts to secure reconsideration (see, e.g., Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Matter of Nelson v. Kelly, 4 A.D.2d 596; Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liq. Auth., 174 Misc. 41). However, where the Authority undertook "formal reconsideration on the merits of the application" with a "fresh, complete and unlimited examination into the merits," it was held that the time for review ran from the date of determination on reconsideration, though not required under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and not from the date of the original determination ( Matter of Camperlengo v. State Liq. Auth., 16 A.D.2d 342, 344).

  2. Matter of Nelson v. Kelly

    7 Misc. 2d 655 (N.Y. Misc. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liquor Auth. ( 174 Misc. 41) followed the Nachbar case. Apparently in the latter case the petitioner submitted some additional evidence in consideration of an application for a rehearing. The commissioner found that the evidence did not warrant a reopening of the proceeding for a rehearing and the original determination was adhered to.

  3. Matter of Green v. Civil Serv. Comm

    4 Misc. 2d 186 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)

    Nor does a rehearing granted as matter of courtesy extend the time within which the proceeding may be brought. ( Matter of Mahony v. Conway, 281 App. Div. 1057; Matter of Italian Hospitalization Soc. v. State Dept. of Social Welfare, 178 Misc. 183; Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liquor Auth., 174 Misc. 41; Matter of Hall v. Leonard, 260 App. Div. 591, 595, affd. 285 N.Y. 719.) Moreover, this proceeding was not brought within four months after the petitioner's last rejection by the Medical Board on October 28, 1955.

  4. Matter of Mallen v. Morton

    199 Misc. 805 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)

    I find and decide from the evidence before me that the notification of April 3, 1947, was a final determination and denial of petitioner's appeal. The subsequent request for reconsideration could not and did not operate to extend the time of petitioner within which to institute an article 78 proceeding ( Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard 260 A.D. 591, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Matter of Harrington v. Coster, 194 Misc. 577; Meyer v. McNamara, N YL.J., March 21, 1950, p. 998, col. 5, HOFSTADTER, J. Matter of Nachbar v. Bruckman, 249 A.D. 723, motion for leave to appeal denied, 249 A.D. 814; Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 174 Misc. 41; Matter of Rosenblatt v. Finkelstein, 84 N.Y.S.2d 193; Matter of Morganstein v. Arnstein, 43 N.Y.S.2d 243). The statute must be deemed to run from the date when the first decisive ruling is made and petitioner cannot, by renewing the application, extend the limitation imposed by the statute ( Matter of Hall v. Leonard, supra).

  5. MATTER OF MALLEN v. Morton

    199 Misc. 805 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950)

    I find and decide from the evidence before me that the notification of April 3, 1947, was a final determination and denial of petitioner's appeal. The subsequent request for reconsideration could not and did not operate to extend the time of petitioner within which to institute an article 78 proceeding (Matter of Weinstock v. Hammond, 270 N.Y. 64; Matter of Hall v. Leonard 260 App. Div. 591, affd. 285 N.Y. 719; Matter of Harrington v. Coster, 194 Misc. 577; Meyer v. McNamara, N. Y. L. J., March 21, 1950, p. 998, col. 5, HOFSTADTER, J. Matter of Nachbar v. Bruckman, 249 App. Div. 723, motion for leave to appeal denied, 249 App. Div. 814; Matter of Mottsman & Co. v. State Liquor Authority, 174 Misc. 41; Matter of Rosenblatt v. Finkelstein, 84 N. Y. S. 2d 193; Matter of Morganstein v. Arnstein, 43 N. Y. S. 2d 243). The statute must be deemed to run from the date when the first decisive ruling is made and petitioner cannot, by renewing the application, extend the limitation imposed by the statute (Matter of Hall v. Leonard, supra).

  6. Matter of Francisco v. O'Connell

    33 Misc. 2d 555 (N.Y. Misc. 1948)   Cited 7 times

    Respondent could have stated "that the hearing and proceedings resulting in said determination would not be reopened". (See Matter of Mottsman Co. v. State Liq. Auth., 174 Misc. 41.) Having been instituted within four months following the most recent action of respondent the proceeding is timely brought.