301 N.Y. 212 (1950)

In the Matter of Angelo Sagos, Respondent, v. John F. O'Connell et al., Constituting The New York State Liquor Authority, Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided July 11, 1950

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alvin McKinley Sylvester and Jack Reinstein for appellants.

Clarence Siegel and George S. Goldberg for respondent.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur; FROESSEL, J., concurs in result.

Per Curiam.

We read the order of the Appellate Division herein — which refers to that court's opinion (Civ. Prac. Act, § 607) and annuls the determination of the State Liquor Authority — as upholding the finding by the Authority that the respondent violated subdivision 4-a of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and that the annulment of the Authority's determination directed by such order rests upon the sole ground that the punishment imposed by the Authority was excessive. Upon that single ground the Appellate Division has annulled that determination on the law and has remitted the proceeding to the Authority "for further action and reconsideration of the extent of the punishment imposed herein". (Emphasis supplied.)

The suspension of a liquor license is one of that type of action by the Authority which is subject to review by the Supreme Court but such review must be in the manner provided by article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 121, subd. 4). Under section 1296 of article 78 we find no provision for the judicial review of the measure of punishment imposed as an incident to disciplinary action ordered by an administrative board such as the Authority where, as in the present case, the Appellate Division has upheld a finding by the Authority of a statutory violation which is made the sole basis for such punishment. (See People ex rel. Morrissey v. Waldo, 212 N.Y. 174, 177-179.)

Accordingly the order should be reversed and the determination of the State Liquor Authority confirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Appeal taken as of right dismissed on the ground that the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Ordered accordingly.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases