Tammaro v. Bruckman

In the Matter of the Application of Gaetano Tammaro, against Henry E. Bruckman and Others, Constituting the State Liquor Authority of the State of New York

Tammaro v. Bruckman, 173 Misc. 958 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939)

Court: New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided: November 27, 1939
Judges: Swezey
Citations: 173 Misc. 95818 N.Y.S.2d 6891939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2752

Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court — Swezey

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Swezey, J.

The license which was granted to the petitioner for the period ending on September 30, 1939, gave to him no vested rights nor did it create any contract between the petitioner and the State. The license is merely a temporary permit issued in the exercise of the police powers to do that which would be prohibited. (Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657, 667 ; People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health, 189 id. 187, 192.)

Accordingly, at the expiration of the period specified in the license, the application for a license for any subsequent period of time constitutes a de novo proceeding and, therefore, a denial of the application for the new period is not tantamount to a revocation of the license. (Matter of Rudhlan Amusement Corp. v. Geraghty, 146 Misc. 308 .) Such application is, in all its legal incidents, identical with an application for an original license.

The petitioner applied directly to the State Liquor Authority for the license to commence on October 1, 1939, with the result that there has been no recommendation for the issuance of a Ecense or permit by any local board. Under these circumstances, the court may not review the action of the Liquor Authority in refusing the issuance of the license. (Alcoholic Bev. Control Law, § 121; Matter of Calvary Presbyterian Church v. State Liquor Authority, 249 App. Div. 288 ; affd., 275 N. Y. 552 .)

The application of the petitioner is, therefore, denied and the cross-motion of the respondents to dismiss the petition is granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Paron v. City of Shakopee32 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1948)
Dadukian v. Zoning Board of Appeals68 A.2d 123 (Conn. 1949)
State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission25 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1947)
STATE ex rel. GOPHER SALES CO. v. City of Austin75 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1956)
Oval Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. Bruckman177 Misc. 244 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)
State ex rel. Interstate, Etc. v. M.-St. P. M. A.25 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1947)

Most recent

STATE ex rel. GOPHER SALES CO. v. City of Austin75 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. 1956)
Dadukian v. Zoning Board of Appeals68 A.2d 123 (Conn. 1949)
Paron v. City of Shakopee32 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1948)
State ex rel. Interstate, Etc. v. M.-St. P. M. A.25 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1947)
State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission25 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1947)
Oval Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. Bruckman177 Misc. 244 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Metro. Bd. of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N.Y. 657 (1866)	132
	Calvary Presbyterian Ch. v. State Liquor Auth, 11 N.E.2d 750 (N.Y. 1937)	10
	Trs. of Calvary Presbyterian Church v. State Liquor Auth., 249 A.D. 288 (1936)	8
	Rudhlan Amusement Corp. v. Geraghty, 146 Misc. 308 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list