From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S S Pub. v. N.Y. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-09707.

March 11, 2008.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority dated June 2, 2006, which adopted the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge dated April 30, 2006, made after a hearing, sustaining charges that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), directed a 10-day suspension, and imposed a civil penalty in the sum of $6,000.

Devane Groder, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Donohue, New York, N.Y. (Scott A. Weiner of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ.


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Upon judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body following a hearing, this Court's function is limited to consideration of whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; Matter of Alegre Deli v New York State Liq. Auth., 298 AD2d 581, 582). The term "substantial evidence" has been held to be a "minimal standard" ( Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 188; Matter of Cafe La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280). Hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings, and may, if sufficiently relevant and probative, constitute substantial evidence ( see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139; Matter of Abdelrahman v New York State Liq. Auth., 209 AD2d 405, 406). Moreover, under appropriate circumstances, hearsay evidence may form the sole basis for an agency's ultimate determination ( see Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, 742-743; Matter of Ridge, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 625, 626; Matter of A.J. Taylor Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727).

The determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority sustaining charges that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of 294 Grand Ave. Grocery Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 12 AD3d 521; Matter of Oneonta Water St. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d 849, 850; Matter of Sue's Rendezvous of Westchester v New York State Liq. Auth., Ill AD2d 273; cf. Matter of Vitagliano v State of NY. Liq. Auth., 174 AD2d 624).

Additionally, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness ( see Matter of Cantina El Bukis Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 46 AD3d 557, 558; Matter of Oneonta Water St. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d at 851; Matter of Ira Wyman, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 170 AD2d 991).


Summaries of

S S Pub. v. N.Y. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

S S Pub. v. N.Y. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of S S PUB, INC., Doing Business as DUBLIN PUB, Appellant…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2162
852 N.Y.S.2d 804

Citing Cases

S&S Pub., Inc. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth.

Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the respondent, the New York State…

CVS Albany, LLC v. Facelle

Upon judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body following a hearing, this Court's…