MATTER OF SKYLINE INN CORP. v. New York State Liquor Auth.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- 53rd Street Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Matter of Joseph M. (N.Y. 1993)
- New York State Department of Mental Hygiene v. State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Matter of Rosa v. New York City Hous. Auth., Straus Houses (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- THYGESEN, WILLIAM J. v. NORTH BAILEY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Thygesen v. North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Thygesen v. North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Johnson v. Association for the Advancement of the Blind & Retarded (New York Supreme Court 2008)
- K.C.B. Bakeries, Inc. v. Butcher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Brown v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1986)
- Kenner v. Coughlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Hynes v. Karassik (N.Y. 1979)
- Cantor v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
In an article 78 proceeding, a petitioner may raise the question of whether a determination "was affected by an error of law” (CPLR 7803, subd 3). At the time of respondent’s determinations, each dated October 25, 1976, one canceling petitioner’s restaurant liquor license and the other disapproving a renewal application, it was an unlawful discriminatory practice "to make an inquiry about, whether in any form of application or otherwise, or to act upon adversely to the individual involved, any arrest or criminal accusation * * * which was followed by a termination of that criminal action or proceeding in favor of such individual” (Executive Law, § 296, subd 14, eff Sept. 11, 1976). While it was permissible to consider the independent evidence of the conduct leading to the criminal charges against Harry Gordon, a shareholder, director and officer of petitioner, and although there was substantial evidence to support the findings of suffering or permitting prostitution at the licensed premises and of the likelihood that renewal would create a high degree of risk in the administration and enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, it was error to predicate disapproval of the renewal application, albeit in part, on the finding that Gordon was "arrested and indicted” for a criminal charge subsequently dismissed. Thus, though there was substantial evidence for the determination in respect to cancellation, it is not for courts to speculate what penalty would have been imposed if the dismissed criminal charges had not been made one of *697 the bases for respondent’s determination in respect to renewal.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, and the matter in respect to renewal remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to remand to respondent to reconsider the sanction imposed based on its findings other than the arrest and indictment of Gordon and, except as so modified, said judgment should be affirmed.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Judgment modified, without costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to remand to the State Liquor Authority for reconsideration of the sanction imposed, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.