HA HA HA INC v. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY (1999)

 Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking to annul respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for a liquor license and directed respondent to issue a liquor license to petitioner.   Although respondent has the discretionary power to deny an application “for good cause shown” (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64[1] ), its concerns that Michael J. Reese, petitioner's sole officer and stockholder, is not the sole real party in interest and lacks adequate experience to manage a business licensed to serve alcoholic beverages are based on speculation and conjecture and therefore do not constitute a rational basis for denial (see, Matter of RSSM v. New York State Liq. Auth., 204 A.D.2d 906, 612 N.Y.S.2d 491;  Matter of 53089 Martina Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 190 A.D.2d 849, 850, 594 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 710, 600 N.Y.S.2d 197, 616 N.E.2d 854;  Matter of Realmuto v. New York State Liq. Auth., 181 A.D.2d 772, 774, 580 N.Y.S.2d 797).   Further, the history of violations committed by the previous licensee is an insufficient basis for the denial of an application, especially where, as here, Reese had no ownership interest in the previous licensee and there is no reasonable factual basis to support a finding that he exercised managerial responsibilities with respect to that prior operation (see, 512-3rd St. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 217 A.D.2d 1010, 629 N.Y.S.2d 932).

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: