125 Bar Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

24 N.Y.2d 174, 299 N.Y.S.2d 194, 247 N.E.2d 157 (1969)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

125 Bar Corp. v. State Liquor Authority

New York Court of Appeals
24 N.Y.2d 174, 299 N.Y.S.2d 194, 247 N.E.2d 157 (1969)

Facts

125 Bar Corporation (plaintiff) owned a bar in New York City. The bar was located on a main commercial street and was near a railroad station and a subway station. 125 Bar first obtained a state liquor license for the bar in April 1968, but the bar operated under different ownership before then. Between June 1966 (when the bar was owned by someone else) and 1967, the bar received four warning letters from the State Liquor Authority (authority) (defendant) regarding alleged actual or potential illegal conduct at the bar. The warning letters concerned, among other things, the bar’s employment of a convicted gambler (although there was no allegation that illegal gambling occurred at the bar), three prostitution solicitations at the bar, and one surreptitious narcotics sale. In addition, there was a prostitution solicitation that did not lead to a warning letter. The authority did not contend that 125 Bar was aware of the alleged misconduct when it occurred. After interviewing 125 Bar, the authority denied 125 Bar’s application to renew its liquor license based on the four warning letters and the additional incident. 125 Bar brought a petition in the supreme court against the authority pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 78 seeking to overturn the authority’s decision. The supreme court transferred the petition to the appellate division, which confirmed the authority’s decision after determining all the issues pursuant to CPLR § 7804(g). 125 Bar appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breitel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership