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.

TETI LIQUOR LICENSE CASE. (06/12/63)

June 12, 1963

TETI LIQUOR LICENSE CASE.


Appeal, No. 143, April T., 1963, from order of County Court of Allegheny County, No. C-1446 of 1962, in case of Matilda Teti, trading and doing business as Tillie's Restaurant, v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board et al. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Jerome M. Meyers, for appellant.

Ines William Cordisco, for appellee.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Wright

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 88]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

On May 7, 1962, Matilda Teti, t/a Tillie's Restaurant, filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board an application for transfer of a retail dispenser's eating place license (malt and brewed beverages) to premises at 308 Thirty-Sixth Street, McKeesport, Pennsylvania. The license in question was originally issued to Grace Perri for premises at 705 Long Run Road, McKeesport, Pennsylvania, and had been held by the Board in safekeeping since April 22, 1959. At the hearing before the Board's examiner the transfer was protested by Anne Orenyak, the owner of a tavern within a distance of two hundred feet. The transfer was also protested by Leon Kulasa, President of the Tavern Association in the City of McKeesport, and a director of the Allegheny County Tavern Association. On August 27, 1962, the Board refused to approve the transfer. On August 31, 1962, the applicant appealed to the County Court of Allegheny County. On October 4, 1962, Anne Orenyak was "granted leave to intervene in the within proceedings, and become a party thereto". On February 2, 1963, the order of the Board was reversed by the court below. Mrs. Orenyak has appealed.

Both the Board and the hearing judge found as a fact that the establishment proposed to be licensed is within two hundred feet of two other licensed establishments. This was the reason assigned by the Board in refusing to approve the transfer. The instant appeal must therefore be sustained on the authority of our recent decisions in Gismondi Liquor License Case, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 619, 186 A.2d 448, Koppenhaver Liquor License Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 214, 188 A.2d 847, and Solomon Liquor License Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 82, 191 A.2d 681. The only relevant difference between the case at bar and the cases cited is that the application here involved is for the transfer, not of

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 89]

    a restaurant liquor license, but of a retail dispenser's eating place license. However, the controlling statutory language is similar in each instance.*fn1

The applicant contends on this appeal (1) that the Board "may not summarily refuse" to transfer a license under the two hundred foot limitation, and (2) that the Board made no findings of fact to support its action. However, as pointed out in the Gismondi, Koppenhaver and Solomon cases, if the location proposed to be licensed is within two hundred feet of another licensed establishment, that fact alone is a sufficient basis for the Board's refusal to grant or transfer the license.

The applicant further contends (3) that, since the hearing was de novo, the lower court "could, and did, properly over-rule the Board". In fact, at one point in the opinion below, the following excerpt ...


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.