You are here: / / FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED...
,

FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; RARE DISCUSSION OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STANDARD OF PROOF.

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the evidence did not support the finding, by the New York State Liquor Authority, the licensee was aware of the presence of illegal drugs on the licensed premises. The decision is instructive about the “substantial evidence” standard of proof in administrative proceedings. The majority held the “substantial evidence” standard was not met:

The dissent points to the testimony of petitioner’s head of security that when security guards were on patrol they would sometimes have a staff member, who was not trained to pat people down, watch the door, as allowing an inference to be drawn that lax security measures led to the presence of drugs at the scene. This however, is purely speculative and not based on the record. The quantity of drugs recovered was very small. The uncontroverted police testimony was that the drugs could easily been have secreted on an individual. There was no evidence that the patrons entering the premises were not subjected to a patdown or that given the packaging, a patdown would have detected drugs. Substantial evidence, which has been characterized as a “minimal standard” or as comprising a “low threshold,” must consist of such relevant proof, within the whole record, “as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … , it does not, however, “rise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation or rumor” … . Matter of Home Run KTV Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 05834, 1st Dept 8-18-16

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; RARE DISCUSSION OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STANDARD OF PROOF)/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; RARE DISCUSSION OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STANDARD OF PROOF)/NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; RARE DISCUSSION OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STANDARD OF PROOF)/LIQUOR LICENSE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FINDING THAT LIQUOR LICENSEE WAS AWARE OF THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; RARE DISCUSSION OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING STANDARD OF PROOF)

You might also like
Part Performance Exception to the Statute of Frauds Does Not Apply to Contracts Which Cannot Be Performed Within One Year
PETITIONER, IN THIS JUDICIARY LAW 509 PROCEEDING, CAN NOT COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS TO REVEAL THE RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND DATES OF JURY SERVICE IN ORDER TO IMPEACH RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESIDED IN PETITIONER’S BUILDING IN 2008 AND 2009 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOFT LAW PROTECTION UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
CHILD’S INCOMPLETE TESTIMONY STRICKEN IN A FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 PROCEEDING MAY BE ADMITTED IN A FAMILY COURT ACT 1046 CHILD ABUSE PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S FEES EVEN WHEN THE LANDLORD IS IN DEFAULT IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
Contractor Was a Statutory Agent for the Owner for Purposes of the Labor Law Causes of Action
BROWN PAPER ON TOP OF GREEN DUST ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED A SLIPPERY CONDITION ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO EMPTY A 300 POUND BIN INTO A DUMPSTER, FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LESSEE AND CITY NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN SIDEWALK; DEFECT WAS NOT IN THE CURB... LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED A REASONABLE EXCUSE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED.