Case Name: In the Matter of Annie Fiore et al., Appellants, against John F. O 'Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1948-03-19
Citations: 297 N.Y. 260
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Annie Fiore et al., Appellants, against John F. O ’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 297
Pages: 260–266

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Annie Fiore et al., Appellants, against John F. O ’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.
Argued January 12, 1948;
decided March 19, 1948.
Michael 8. Meyerowits and Alexander Bel Giorno for appellants.
I. The refusal of the authority to grant a license to the petitioners herein, was 1 £ arbitrary ’ ’, and apparently based on nothing else but mere capriciousness, without justification in fact or in law. (Matter of Restaurants & Patisseries Longchamps, Inc., v. O’Connell, 296 N. Y. 239.) II. Since the facts submitted by the petitioners conclusively establish that the denial of a license to them was without legal support, Special Term did not substitute its judgment for that of the authority in granting the petitioners’ application directing the authority to issue a license to them, but rather corrected an abuse and injustice practiced by the authority against a veteran just as entitled to his license as the other veteran. (Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N. Y. 435; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88.)
Alvin McKinley Sylvester for respondents.
The authority refused to issue a license to George Fiore because he had had no business experience whatsoever, and had never saved a penny of his own. In the reasonable exercise of its discretion, and in the light of its duty to the public, it concluded that the issuance of a license under such circumstances would create a high degree of risk in the administration of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. (Matter of Glintenkamp v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 795, 296 N. Y. 806; Matter of Roccaforte v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 831, 296 N. Y. 938; Matter of Watinsky v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 973, 297 N. Y. 552; Matter of Finn v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 896, 297 N. Y. 607; Matter of Restaurants & Patisseries Longchamps, Inc., v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 684, 296 N. Y. 888; Federal Communications Comm. v. WOKO, 329 U. S. 223; Matter of Snetlage v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 1015, 297 N. Y. 707; Matter of College Point Wines & Liquors v. O’Connell, 271 App. Div. 278, 296 N. Y. 752; Matter of Pruzan v. Valentine, 282 N. Y. 498; Matter of Dusinberre v. Noyes, 284 N. Y. 304.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is settled that the courts will not disturb the exercise of administrative discretion vested in the State Liquor Authority by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law unless the action complained of be deemed arbitrary or capricious. (See Matter of Glintenkamp v. O'Connell, 296 N. Y. 806, affg. 271 App. Div. 795; Matter of Roccaforte v. O'Connell, 296 N. Y. 938, affg. 271 App. Div. 831; Matter of Watinsky v. O'Connell, 297 N. Y. 552, affg. 271 App. Div. 973; Matter of Finn v. O'Connell, 297 N. Y. 607, affg. 271 App. Div. 896.)' In this case, a license was issued to the veteran King after appellants' application had been disapproved, but consideration of the record before us quickly discloses differences — slight though they may seem — between the situations. The successful applicant King is several years older than George Fiore. Having worked for a living, he has enjoyed a certain business experience not possessed by Fiore, and he has revealed a measure of thrift and frugality not found in the other. The choice to be made may have been a narrow one; the determination at which the authority arrived may have been close — perhaps borderline, .However, room for choice — basis for exercise of judgment — there was, and we may not say that " analogy is so complete " between the two cases " that inference arises that the refusal [in appellants' case] is the result of unfair discrimination and oppression." (See Matter of Larkin Co. v. Schwab, 242 N. Y. 330, 336.)
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.