Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER JAMES MANITTA v. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY (03/03/69)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 1969.NY.40675 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 298 N.Y.S.2d 846; 31 A.D.2d 929 March 3, 1969 IN THE MATTER OF JAMES MANITTA, RESPONDENT,v.STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, APPELLANT In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 24, 1968, which (1) vacated appellant's order dated June 10, 1968, canceling petitioner's special on-premises liquor license, and (2) substituted therefor a 60-day suspension of the license, with credit for the 53 days during which petitioner's premises were closed prior to the institution of this proceeding. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.


In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 24, 1968, which (1) vacated appellant's order dated June 10, 1968, canceling petitioner's special on-premises liquor license, and (2) substituted therefor a 60-day suspension of the license, with credit for the 53 days during which petitioner's premises were closed prior to the institution of this proceeding.

Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, on the law, by (1) striking out all the decretal provisions therein which direct that the penalty should be a 60-day suspension of petitioner's license, with credit for 53 days, and (2) adding a provision thereto remitting the matter to appellant for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein set forth. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, petitioner's plea of "No contest with an explanation" was ambiguous. He thought he was not pleading guilty to the charge, whereas appellant has claimed the plea constituted an admission of guilt. In the interests of justice, appellant's determination should stand annulled and the matter remitted to appellant to enable petitioner to answer the charge by denying it and be accorded a full hearing on the merits before appellant, at which hearing petitioner may make a complete explanation of the facts.

19690303

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.