From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1960
10 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Opinion

May 23, 1960


Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated December 11, 1959, suspending for 10 days petitioner's retail off-premises beer license on the ground that the petitioner had violated subdivision 1 of section 65 Alco. Bev. Cont. of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by selling an alcoholic beverage to a minor actually under the age of 18 years. The proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296), by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 5, 1960. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs. A sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor who is actually under the age of 18 years constitutes a violation of the statute, regardless of the fact that the minor appeared to be over that age ( Matter of Barnett v. O'Connell, 279 App. Div. 449). Nor is it a defense that the minor represented herself to be, or presented purported proof of being, over that age ( Matter of Ward v. O'Connell, 280 App. Div. 1021). Such a sale is an act malum prohibitum and is not to be excused by ignorance, mistake of fact or honorable intention ( People v. Werner, 174 N.Y. 132; People v. Davin, 1 A.D.2d 811). Beldock, Acting P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1960
10 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)
Case details for

Matter of Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROSS'S DAIRIES, LTD., Petitioner, against THOMAS E. ROHAN…

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

Date published: May 23, 1960

Citations

10 A.D.2d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Santoro v. Di Marco

At the time the plaintiff was 17 years of age, making it malum prohibitum to serve alcohol to him. (See…

People v. Kriesel

Such a sale is an act malum prohibitum and is not to be excused by ignorance, mistake of fact or honorable…