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
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE.
HOLDOVER RENT IN AN AMOUNT THREE TIMES EXISTING RENT CONSTITUTED APPROPRIATE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT A PENALTY; DEFENDANT, THE SELLER OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, REQUESTED POSSESSION FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING (FIRST DEPT).
Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule
BUILDING RESIDENTS CAN BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARATION FOR SUPERSTORM SANDY.
Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO AN ENGINEERING FIRM HIRED TO OVERSEE AN HVAC INSTALLATION PROJECT; THE THREE-YEAR NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT LIABILITY ON A PIERCING-THE-CORPORATE-VEIL THEORY AND THE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL SOMETHING WAS NOT A BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS (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.