S & S Pub, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Majority

p. 654

In the Matter of S & S Pub, Inc., Doing Business as Dublin Pub, Appellant, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 804]

Upon judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body following a hearing, this Court’s function is limited to consideration of whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135 , 140 [1987]; Matter of Alegre Deli v New York State Liq. Auth., 298 AD2d 581 , 582 [2002]). The term “substantial evidence” has been held to be a “minimal standard” (Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179 , 188 [1998]; Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280 [2007]). Hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings, and may, if sufficiently relevant and probative, constitute substantial evidence (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130 , 139 [1985]; Matter of Abdelrahman

p. 655

v New York State Liq. Auth., 209 AD2d 405 , 406 [1994]). Moreover, under appropriate circumstances, hearsay evidence may form the sole basis for an agency’s ultimate determination (see Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741 , 742-743 [1988]; Matter of Ridge, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 257 AD2d 625 , 626 [1999]; Matter of A. J. & Taylor Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d 727 [1995]).

The determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority sustaining charges that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of294 Grand Ave. Grocery Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 12 AD3d 521 [2004]; Matter of Oneonta Water St. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d 849 , 850 [2001]; Matter of Sue’s Rendezvous of Westchester v New York State Liq. Auth., 177 AD2d 273 ; cf. Matter of Vitagliano v State of N.Y. Liq. Auth., 174 AD2d 624 [1991]).

Additionally, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Cantina El Bukis Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 46 AD3d 557 , 558 [2007]; Matter of Oneonta Water St. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d at 851 ; Matter of Ira Wyman, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 170 AD2d 991 [1991]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

Lahey v. Kelly 71 NY2d 135 N.Y. 1987-12-23 at 140 p. 654
Alegre Deli, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority 298 AD2d 581 N.Y. App. Div. 2002-10-28 at 582 p. 654
FMC Corp. v. Unmack 92 NY2d 179 N.Y. 1998-07-07 at 188 p. 654
Café La China Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority 43 AD3d 280 N.Y. App. Div. 2007-08-09 p. 654
People ex rel. Vega v. Smith 66 NY2d 130 N.Y. 1985-10-15 at 139 p. 654
Ridge, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority 257 AD2d 625 N.Y. App. Div. 1999-01-19 at 626 p. 655
A.J. & Taylor Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority 214 AD2d 727 N.Y. App. Div. 1995-04-24 p. 655
294 Grand Avenue Grocery Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority 12 AD3d 521 N.Y. App. Div. 2004-11-15 p. 655
Oneonta Water Street, Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority 279 AD2d 849 N.Y. App. Div. 2001-01-18 at 850 p. 655
Sue's Rendezvous of Westchester, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority 177 AD2d 273 N.Y. App. Div. 1991-11-07 p. 655
Vitagliano v. State of New York Liquor Authority 174 AD2d 624 N.Y. App. Div. 1991-06-10 p. 655
Cantina El Bukis Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority 46 AD3d 557 N.Y. App. Div. 2007-12-04 at 558 p. 655
Ira Wyman, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority 170 AD2d 991 N.Y. App. Div. 1991-02-01 p. 655

Statutes and regulations cited

Alcoholic Beverage Control Law p. 655