From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sagos v. O'Connell

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 11, 1950
301 N.Y. 212 (N.Y. 1950)

Opinion

Argued May 29, 1950

Decided July 11, 1950

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Alvin McKinley Sylvester and Jack Reinstein for appellants. Clarence Siegel and George S. Goldberg for respondent.


We read the order of the Appellate Division herein — which refers to that court's opinion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 607) and annuls the determination of the State Liquor Authority — as upholding the finding by the Authority that the respondent violated subdivision 4-a of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and that the annulment of the Authority's determination directed by such order rests upon the sole ground that the punishment imposed by the Authority was excessive. Upon that single ground the Appellate Division has annulled that determination on the law and has remitted the proceeding to the Authority "for further action and reconsideration of the extent of the punishment imposed herein". (Emphasis supplied.)

The suspension of a liquor license is one of that type of action by the Authority which is subject to review by the Supreme Court but such review must be in the manner provided by article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 121, subd. 4). Under section 1296 of article 78 we find no provision for the judicial review of the measure of punishment imposed as an incident to disciplinary action ordered by an administrative board such as the Authority where, as in the present case, the Appellate Division has upheld a finding by the Authority of a statutory violation which is made the sole basis for such punishment. (See People ex rel. Morrissey v. Waldo, 212 N.Y. 174, 177-179.)

Accordingly the order should be reversed and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Appeal taken as of right dismissed on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur; FROESSEL, J., concurs in result.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Matter of Sagos v. O'Connell

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 11, 1950
301 N.Y. 212 (N.Y. 1950)
Case details for

Matter of Sagos v. O'Connell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANGELO SAGOS, Respondent, against JOHN F. O'CONNELL et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 11, 1950

Citations

301 N.Y. 212 (N.Y. 1950)
93 N.E.2d 644

Citing Cases

Matter of Barsky v. Board of Regents

A professional license is a high privilege from the State, and the State can attach to its possession…

Matter of Ward v. O'Connell

Irrespective of intention, however, the law places squarely upon the licensee the risk of sales to minors. (…