Case Name: In the Matter of Hermina Forman et al., Doing Business as Halsey Wine and Liquor Store, Respondents, v. New York State Liquor Authority et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1968-04-11
Citations: 21 N.Y.2d 984
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Hermina Forman et al., Doing Business as Halsey Wine and Liquor Store, Respondents, v. New York State Liquor Authority et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 984–987

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Hermina Forman et al., Doing Business as Halsey Wine and Liquor Store, Respondents, v. New York State Liquor Authority et al., Appellants.
Argued April 3, 1968;
decided April 11, 1968.
Emanuel D. Black, Hyman Amsel and Stanley Stem for New York State Liquor Authority and another, appellants.
Robert W. Corcoran for respondents.
Monroe I. Katcher, II, for Pierse’s Broadway Wine & Liquor Co., Inc., amicus curiæ.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs against appellants Authority and board, in the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division that the record developed by the State Liquor Authority after remand by us still is inadequate to establish a reasonable or rational basis for the 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 reverse and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum: The record now before the court is substantially different from the inadequate, conclusory record before the court on the prior appeal (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N Y 2d 224). It supports the Authority's determination. How the record is to be interpreted, so long as the interpretation is rational, is exclusively for the Authority, as was so recently held in the parallel case of Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth. (21 N Y 2d 379).