Opinion

Barry v. O'Connell

  • 303 N.Y. 46
  • 100 N.E.2d 127
  • 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 686
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Jul 11, 1951
Status
Published
Author
Fuld
On the bench
Desmond, Fuld, Lewis
Cited by
129 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.7%

The opinion

Fuld, J.

(concurring). In a case such as this, where the local Alcoholic Beverage Control Board approved the application for a license, the State Liquor Authority is not required by statute to grant a hearing to the applicant. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 63, subd. 2; § 54, subds. 2, 3; see, also, Matter of Glenram Wine & Liq. Corp. v. O’Connell, 295 N. Y. 336, 342 .) That being so, I do not believe that the Authority is under the necessity of making specific or formal findings of fact even though the Authority may, as a matter of grace, grant a hearing. (Cf. 1 Benjamin, Administrative Adjudication in the State of New York, p. 253, fn. 3.) I concur for reversal, however, on the limited ground that, so far as appears from the record before us, the Authority, in refusing a license to petitioner for the reason that there was no “ need ” for a retail liquor store, employed a standard different from that fixed by the Legislature (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 2). Until a proper standard is applied by the Authority, there is no necessity to consider or pass upon the validity of the determination.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the determination of the State Liquor Authority annulled and the proceeding remitted to the Authority for further consideration on the basis of the standards prescribed by the statute.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.