H.C. Entertainment Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H.C. Entertainment Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority

270 A.D.2d 159, 704 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3081

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 23, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated August 12, 1998, suspending petitioner’s liquor license for 15 days and imposing a $2,500 fine, upon a finding that petitioner sold liquor to a minor in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Beverly Cohen, J.], entered December 22, 1998) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) was provided by the undercover officer’s testimony that an underage auxiliary police officer who accompanied him was served six alcoholic beverages from three different bartenders without being asked for identification. [160]*160Also offered was the auxiliary officer’s driver’s licence and police identification card, both of which demonstrated that he was under the age of 21 at that time (see, O.F.B., Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 212 AD2d 373). Noting petitioner’s prior adjudicated violations, including narcotics violations in 1996, the penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (cf., supra). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, dated August 12, 1998, suspending petitioner’s liquor license for 15 days and imposing a $2,500 fine, upon a finding that petitioner sold liquor to a minor in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Beverly Cohen, J.], entered December 22, 1998) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) was provided by the undercover officer’s testimony that an underage auxiliary police officer who accompanied him was served six alcoholic beverages from three different bartenders without being asked for identification. [160]*160Also offered was the auxiliary officer’s driver’s licence and police identification card, both of which demonstrated that he was under the age of 21 at that time (see, O.F.B., Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 212 AD2d 373). Noting petitioner’s prior adjudicated violations, including narcotics violations in 1996, the penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (cf., supra). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

H.C. Entertainment Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 270 A.D.2d 159, 704 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 159 (H.C. Entertainment Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related