New York Court of Appeals, 1981

P.G.P. Entertainment Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 20, 1981

52 N.Y.2d 886; 418 N.E.2d 1318; 437 N.Y.S.2d 299; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2134

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of White Plains Fine Wine & Spirits LLC v. New York State Liq. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Junk Yard, Inc. v. New York State Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Zito v. State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

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 of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the determination of the New York State Liquor Authority annulled and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, with directions to remand to the authority for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

The bases of the State Liquor Authority’s denial of petitioner’s application for a special on-premises liquor license were the perceived lack of expertise of the proprietor-corporate principals, the proximity of the proposed establishment to a synagogue and the adverse sentiment in the community. As this court recently held, neither community opposition nor proximity to places of worship or schools beyond the statutory limit can support a license denial (Matter of Circus Disco v New York State Liq. Auth., 51 *888NY2d 24). Although the authority validly may consider the expertise or ability of the applicant to operate a particular establishment (see Matter of Herms v New York State Liq. Auth., 35 AD2d 833, affd no opn 28 NY2d 956), the agency’s reliance on additional improper factors requires that its determination be annulled. Nevertheless, since the lack of expertise of the applicant would be a valid ground for denial of the license (see id.), the matter should be remitted to the authority for reconsideration of the application on the basis of that and other appropriate criteria, with an appropriate opportunity to both sides to address the issues.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, with costs, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.