MATTER OF FORMAN v. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, 21 N.Y.2d 984 (1968)

290 N.Y.S.2d 909, 238 N.E.2d 315

In the Matter of HERMINA FORMAN et al., Doing Business as Halsey Wine and Liquor Store, Respondents, v. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued April 3, 1968
Decided April 11, 1968

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, FRANK S. SAMANSKY, J.

Page 985

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 986

Emanuel D. Black, Hyman Amsel and Stanley Stein for New York State Liquor Authority and another, appellants.

Robert W. Corcoran for respondents.

Monroe I. Katcher, II, for Pierse’s Broadway Wine Liquor Co., Inc., amicus curiae.

Order affirmed, with costs against appellants Authority and board, in the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division that the record developed by the State Liquor Authority after remand by us still is inadequate to establish a reasonable or rational basis for the Authority’s conclusion that the issuance of a license to the applicant would promote the “public convenience and advantage”. (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N.Y.2d 224; Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth., 21 N.Y.2d 379.)

Concur: Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, KEATING and JASEN.

Chief Judge FULD and Judges BERGAN and BREITEL dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum:

The record now before the court is substantially different from

Page 987

the inadequate, conclusory record before the court on the prior appeal (Matter of Forman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 17 N.Y.2d 224). It supports the Authority’s determination. How the record is to be interpreted, so long as the interpretation is rational, is exclusively for the Authority, as was so recently held in the parallel case of Matter of Sinacore v. New York State Liq. Auth. (21 N.Y.2d 379).