Case ID: ny-2d_21/html/1029-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Sara B. Levine, Doing Business as Supreme Wine & Liquor Company, Appellant, v. New York State Liquor Authority et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 11, 1968;
    decided April 18, 1968.
    
      
      Robert W. Corcoran for appellant.
    
      Benjamin Laskin and Hyman Amsel for State Liquor Authority, respondent.
   Order reversed and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent with the following memorandum, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division: The record is inadequate to establish a reasonable or rational basis for the State Liquor Authority’s conclusion that the issuance of a license to the applicant would promote the “public convenience and advantage ” (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N Y 2d 224; Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N Y 2d 379).

Concur: Judges Burke, Scileppi, Keating and Jasen. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Bergan and Breitel dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the record shows prospective development of a large housing project in the area and it was, therefore, within the province of the Authority to determine that granting of the application satisfied the standards of public convenience and advantage. Consequently, this case is distinguishable from Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth. (21 N Y 2d 984).

Motion for a stay denied.