Opinion
November 23, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
Contrary to respondent State Liquor Authority's contention, its declaratory ruling that a retail license may not issue when wholesalers or manufacturers own an interest in the premises is, in the circumstances here presented, arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Schenley Indus. v State Liq. Auth., 25 A.D.2d 285, affd 32 N.Y.2d 638; Matter of Caputo v State Liq. Auth., 55 Misc.2d 229).
The interests of the three Japanese breweries in various companies having an ownership interest in petitioner's parent group, while constituting an indirect interest under the statute, are de minimis when the breweries are viewed as separate and competing entities, as respondent Authority determined them to be (see, Matter of E.J. Korvette, Inc. v State Liq. Auth., 26 A.D.2d 439, 441, affd 21 N.Y.2d 766). There is no factual basis in the record for aggregating these interests, and in light of petitioner's agreement not to sell any products manufactured by these companies or to purchase alcoholic products from wholesale licensees controlled by such manufacturers, the Authority's continued denial of a license to petitioner fails to fulfill any statutory objective (1933 Opns Atty Gen 158).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.