TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baby Grand Cafe, Inc. v. Hostetter

In the Matter of Baby Grand Cafe, Inc. v. Donald S. Hostetter, Individually and Constituting the State Liquor Authority

Baby Grand Cafe, Inc. v. Hostetter, 19 A.D.2d 608 (1963)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 18, 1963
Citations
19 A.D.2d 608241 N.Y.S.2d 1131963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3589

Opinion of the Court

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

Determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated February 28, 1963, canceling petitioner’s restaurant liquor license, and determination of the Authority, dated March 4, 1963, disapproving petitioner’s application for renewal of said license, annulled, on the law, charges 1 and 3 dismissed, the findings based on Said charges disaffirmed, and, in the exercise of discretion, both proceedings remanded to the Authority for a determination of the proper sanction to be imposed for the remaining charges 2 and 4 and findings based thereon, without costs to any party. Charge 1 alleges a sale of alcoholic beverages to a person actually or apparently under the influence of liquor. The finding supporting this charge was insufficient, stating only that the investigators “ thought ” the patron was intoxicated. Charge 3 -alleged that the premises were operated as a “ clip joint”. The testimony supporting the charge was that unaccompanied women’s bills were charged to men who joined them. The Authority apparently has not attempted to define a “clip joint”. Without attempting a comprehensive or conclusive definition of the term, in the absence of proof of overcharge or dilution of drinks, the charge is not supported. Since the Authority relies on the same findings for the cancellation proceeding and for the renewal application, the entire matter is remanded. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list