Case Name: Cenegal Manor, Inc., Doing Business as LeRerdez-Vous Café, Respondent, v. Anthony J. Casale et al., Individually and as Members of the New York State Liquor Authority, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-06-30
Citations: 251 A.D.2d 259
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cenegal Manor, Inc., Doing Business as LeRerdez-Vous Café, Respondent, v Anthony J. Casale et al., Individually and as Members of the New York State Liquor Authority, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 251
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Cenegal Manor, Inc., Doing Business as LeRerdez-Vous Café, Respondent, v Anthony J. Casale et al., Individually and as Members of the New York State Liquor Authority, Appellants.
[675 NYS2d 54]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered on or about Novem ber 12, 1997, which granted petitioner's application to annul respondent's determination revoking petitioner's liquor license to the extent of vacating the determination and remanding to respondent for a new administrative hearing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's determination, which was made upon petitioner's failure to appear at a hearing that had been twice before adjourned at petitioner's request, was properly annulled as arbitrary and capricious with a direction to respondent to hold a new administrative hearing, where petitioner's request for a third adjournment, made eight months after the charges were served, five months after the first scheduled hearing date, and one day before the last scheduled hearing date, was supported by its attorney's affidavit of actual engagement in a criminal case, and, as it happened, its attorney did come to the hearing location approximately an hour and a half late prepared to proceed. We are not convinced by respondent's claim that a further delay in the revocation of petitioner's liquor license could be dangerous to the public, where respondent consented to two adjournments that added up to a five-month delay. Furthermore, it appears petitioner has a meritorious defense to the charges, inasmuch as the underlying summonses were dismissed. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.