Court Opinion

ID: 9930958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:08:54.989546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:31.976409
License: Public Domain

Thaler v New York State Liq. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30369(U)
                     February 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156347/2020
                  Judge: Debra A. James
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 156347/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DEBRA A. JAMES                                                 PART     59
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.            156347/2020
             STEVEN THALER and WEST VILLAGE RESIDENTS
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE           10/18/2022
             ASSOCIATION,

                                                         Petitioners,                                MOTION SEQ. NO.           001

             For a Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
             Law & Rules,

                                                 - V -                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
             NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY and KANEKEI,
                                                                                                              MOTION
             INC, d/b/a KANEKAY RAMEN,

                                                         Respondents.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
            12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
            were read on this motion to/for                                             ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)

                                                                            ORDER

                      Upon                  the                foregoing                          documents,              it             is

            ADJUDGED             that       the       petition             is      denied,           and    the     proceeding           is

            dismissed, with costs and disbursements to respondents; and it is

            further

                      ADJUDGED                  that            respondents,                       having          addresses             at

                                                         ,    and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,                         respectively,

            do recover from petitioners, having addresses at ______ , and

                                                respectively,                   costs         and       disbursements          in       the

            amount          of      $                                       as      taxed          by   the      Clerk,    and       that

            respondents have execution therefor.

             156347/2020 THALER, STEVEN vs. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR                                                          Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 001

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                           INDEX NO. 156347/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                                                       DECISION

                   As stated in Circus Disco Ltd v New York Liquor Authority,

            51 NY 2 d 2 4 , 3 7 - 3 8 ( 1 9 8 0 ) :

                           The final question is the weight to be given by the
                           authority in its decision making process          to the
                           opposition of community residents and political leaders.
                           The authority suggests that the addition by chapter 256
                           of the Laws of 1978 of subdivision 7 to section 100 of
                           the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which requires every
                           applicant for a retail license to post a notice of the
                           pendency of the application on the premises proposed to
                           be licensed, indicates the Legislature's intent that the
                           authority consider community views concerning whether a
                           license should be issued. Assuming that such a provision
                           would not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of
                           power (an issue on which we express no view, but compare
                           Seattle Trust Co. v Roberge, 278 US 116; and Matter of
                           Concordia Coll. Inst. v Miller, 301 NY 189, with City of
                           Eastlake v Forest City Enterprises, 426 US 668), we find
                           nothing in the wording of the subdivision or in the
                           authority's memorandum in support of the amendment (NY
                           Legis Ann, 1978, p 185) to suggest that its purpose was
                           other than fairness and openness in government by making
                           the application known so that objections otherwise
                           cognizable under the statute could be brought to the
                           authority's attention. A more explicit indication of
                           legislative intent than subdivision 7 would be required
                           were public or community reaction alone, unrelated to
                           the other standards set forth in the law, to be a basis
                           for denial of a license. While it is not always
                           inappropriate for the authority to receive the views of
                           others (see Matter of Barry v O'Connell, 303 NY 46, 51,
                           supra; Matter of Winkler v State Liq. Auth., 3 AD2d 1011,
                           affd 4 NY2d 856; Matter of Waverly Rest. Corp. v State
                           Liq. Auth., 24 AD2d 985, supra; Matter of Steiert v
                           Epstein, 15 AD2d 532, supra), the authority cannot deny
                           an   application without    a   reason  other   than  the
                           recommendation or views thus expressed any more than it
                           could properly grant a license application on the basis
                           of outside recommendation and without reference to the
                           statutory standards. As Mr. Justice Pittoni succinctly
                           put it in a zoning case, Matter of Mollineaux v Michaelis
             156347/2020 THALER, STEVEN vs. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR          Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                         2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156347/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                            (29 Misc 2d 933, 935, affd 16 AD2d 697, supra), "Perhaps
                           the respondents were swayed by the number of objectors.
                           However, we must keep in mind that ours is a government
                           of law and not of men; and that decisions, especially
                           where property rights are protected by Constitutions and
                           laws, must be based upon such laws and not upon sympathy
                           or public opinion." (Accord: Matter of Pleasant Val.
                           Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028, 1029; Udell v
                           Haas , 2 1 NY 2 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 ; De Sen a v Gulde , 2 4 AD 2 d 1 6 5 ,
                           171.)

                           Here the authority noted in its decision the letters
                           received   by   it  from    the    area's  State   Senator,
                           Assemblyman and Councilperson and the filing of a
                           petition with more than 800 signatures protesting the
                           application. The filing of such letters and petition
                           were proper but of themselves cannot sustain the
                           authority's determination,      unsupported as to other
                           permitted   bases  as    above    shown,  to   reject   the
                           application.

                   This court disagrees with petitioners that the 1993 Padavan

            amendments legislatively repealed Circus Disco, supra, and its

            progeny.        As the Appellate Division, First Department in Galaxy

            Bar & Grill v New York State Liquor Authority, 154 AD3d 476, 480

            (l3t Dept 2017),         favorably citing Circus Disco, states "community

            opposition in and of itself cannot sustain the authority's

            determination to reject the application".                Moreover, even

            accepting petitioners' argument that the "quality of life"

            standard applies, petitioners cite no evidence before the

            Commissioners that the grant of the permit to allow the service

            of beer and wine would increase the noise levels of patrons of

            or vendor deliveries to respondent Kanekay Ramen, the ramen

            noodle restaurant,           for which the New York City Building

             156347/2020 THALER, STEVEN vs. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR                     Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 156347/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            Department issued a temporary certificate of occupancy.

            Therefore, the Reconsideration Decision dated April 15, 2020,

            was neither arbitrary or capricious, nor an abuse of discretion,

            nor affected by errors of law.

                                                                             J)-~ .A - } ~
                                                                           20240201132548DJAME56BEB40BF2A2140808A3DB14BB952EDB0

                     2/1/2024
                      DATE                                                          DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C.

                                     ~                                 ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART
                                                                                                            □
                                                                                                                  OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                            □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT                  REFERENCE

             156347/2020 THALER, STEVEN vs. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR                                              Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]