Summary
holding vendor liable, without inquiring into vendor's state of mind, where patrons carried alcohol off-premises
Summary of this case from Englund v. MN CA PartnersOpinion
March 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Edward Lehner, J.].
An investigator for the respondent testified that he observed an employee of petitioner serve alcoholic beverages to patrons who then proceeded outdoors, off the grounds of the premises, to consume these drinks. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence which demonstrated that petitioner-pub sold liquor for off-premises consumption in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (3) (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180; Matter of Lilpin Tavern v. New York State Liq. Auth., 146 A.D.2d 484, 486, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 607).
Further, the penalty imposed herein was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of August Vazac Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 205 A.D.2d 391; Matter of Eclipse Disco v. New York State Liq. Auth., 176 A.D.2d 649).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.