Hyperlawhypertext legal database Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority 21 N.Y.2d 748

← Cases

Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

21 N.Y.2d 748 Court N.Y. Decision date 1968-01-18 English

Contents

Majority

p. 748
In the Matter of Chateau Madrid Restaurant Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent-Appellant.
Argued January 3, 1968;
decided January 18, 1968.
p. 749
Matter of Chateau Madrid Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 27 A D 2d 708, affirmed.
p. 750
Saul S. Goldman and Isadora B. Hurwitz for appellant-respondent.
Benjamin Laskin and Hyman Amsel for respondent-appellant.

Upon the appeal by the licensee: Order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the State Liquor Authority that charges Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were sustained by substantial evidence. It should be noted that the Appellate Division, lacking power to find new facts, may not reverse on the facts. (See Matter of Shell Cr. Sailing Club v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 20 N Y 2d 841 .)

All concur, Judge Keating only as to charges Nos. 2 and 3, except Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Bergan who dissent and

p. 751
vote to reverse and grant the petition on the ground that the determination of the State Liquor Authority is not supported by substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Matter of Migliaccio v. O’Connell, 307 N. Y. 566 ; Matter of 2125 Barney’s Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 13 N Y 2d 662 .)

Upon the cross appeal by the State Liquor Authority: Cross appeal dismissed upon the ground that the State Liquor Authority is not a party aggrieved. (See, e.g., Oppenheimer v. Oppenheimer, 11 N Y 2d 838 .)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating, Breitel and Jasen.

Cases cited