In re Ruland
New York Supreme Court
Application by a citizen for the revocation of a liquor tax certificate, pursuant to section 28 of the Liquor Tax Law, on the ground that it was falsely stated in the application that the owners of two-thirds of the dwellings, within 200 "feet, had consented.
1Opinion of the CourtGaynor, J.
There were at the time of the application for the liquor tax certificate 21 buildings ordinarily occupied exclusively for dwellings,- within the 200 feet limit. This leaves out 288 Greene avenue,- which is the entrance to the rear of the building 378 Classon avenue, mainly used as a grocery store. It includes 386 Classon avenue, which' is a boarding-house. Two of said dwellings, viz.) 401 and 370 Classon avenue, were vacant at the time of such application. The tenant of 303 Greene avenue is a dressmaker by trade, and does more or less sewing in the house, but has no sign out. This does not…
2Cited by5 opinions
- In re BridgeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- In re BridgeNew York Supreme Court · 1898
- In re RasquinNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- In re McMonagleNew York Supreme Court · 1903
- In re HenryNew York Supreme Court · 1913