MATTER OF INNER CIRCLE REST., INC. v. New York State Liquor Auth.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Joseph Paul Winery Inc. v. State (New York Supreme Court 2014)
- Park v. Board of Regents of University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Ontario County Health Facility (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Waddell v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Cuti v. Roth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In the Matter of Inner Circle Restaurant, Inc., Respondent,
v.
New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Emanuel D. Black, Eli Ratner and Alex K. Gross for appellant.
Maurice Edelbaum, Lawrence K. Feitell and Milton A. Morrison for respondent.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.
Order reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Special Term with directions to remand the matter to the State Liquor Authority for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In treating this as a "single instance" case within the meaning of Matter of Stanwood United v. O'Connell (283 App. Div. 79, 82, affd. 306 N.Y. 749), the Appellate Division erred, inasmuch as any determination adverse to the licensee would have to rest upon a finding that the licensee's agent, the bartender, was instrumental in creating the disorder alleged (Matter of Club 95 v. New York State Liq. Auth., 23 N Y 2d 784). Upon the new hearing which our reversal mandates, the police officer's memorandum book should be made available (Matter of Garabedian v. New York State Liq. Auth., 33 A D 2d 980, mot. for lv. to app. den. 26 N Y 2d 614). Inasmuch as petitioner was denied a full hearing, we do not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the Authority.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.