Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in lawsuit alleging that defendant denied plaintiff due process by revoking site approval for retail sale of alcohol by third-party on plaintiff’s property after defendant had revoked third-party’s liquor license due to violation of City Code. Instant site approval was not protected property right for due process purposes since: (1) site approval was expressly conditioned on existence of liquor license for use on said premises; (2) third-party’s liquor license had been revoked by time of instant revocation of site approval; and (3) any interest that plaintiff had in site approval was “meager,” “transitory” and “uncertain,” since it was dependent on existence of liquor license. Fact that third-party’s liquor license was protected property for due process purposes did not require different result. Ct. further found that defendant provided plaintiff with sufficient due process where it notified plaintiff of hearing for liquor license revocation and allowed plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses during hearing.