Opinion
No. 11–P–1997.
2012-11-16
BRISTOL COUNTY STADIUM, INC., v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN of SEEKONK.
By the Court (GRAINGER, BROWN & SULLIVAN, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
This case comes to us, by way of a certiorari appeal, as a result of a raucous day of entertainment fittingly termed the “Thrill Show .” Bristol County Stadium, Inc., doing business as Seekonk Speedway (BCS), operates a motor vehicle racing facility and holds an entertainment license issued by the board of selectmen of Seekonk (board). BCS takes issue with the judgment entered on the pleadings in favor of the board in a dispute over the board's ability to alter BCS's entertainment license restrictions. As the judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
Since they are adequately described in the judge's memorandum of decision, we only briefly highlight the pertinent facts. Following the “Thrill Show,” a demolition derby and fireworks display during which, among other incidents, emergency responders seeking to assist accident victims were pelted with glass bottles and other debris by patrons, the board held a hearing on the renewal of BCS's entertainment license and added several conditions to the license. Ultimately BCS, as a condition of its license renewal, was required, inter alia, to maintain access for emergency vehicles, employ a suitable number of ushers to manage crowds during events, and reduce the hours during which it sells alcohol. In reviewing a decision regarding an entertainment license, the court will “uphold the decision of the licensing authority as long as the findings by the authority are supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.” The Black Rose, Inc. v. Boston, 433 Mass. 501, 503 n. 2 (2001), quoting from 1001 Plays, Inc. v. Mayor of Boston, 387 Mass. 879, 885 (1983). A review of the record indicates that the board's decision on BCS's license renewal was carefully crafted and supported by the evidence of threats to public health and safety that occurred during the “Thrill Show.”
The remainder of BCS's arguments consist of criticisms of what BCS would characterize as the board's harsh reaction to the “Thrill Show.” These arguments are without merit.
BCS's challenge to the conditions imposed on its liquor sales is not properly before this court as it did not appeal to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission pursuant to G.L. c. 138, § 67.
BCS's argument that the board lacked jurisdiction because its actions were instead within the “purview” of the Outdoor Advertising Board, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the United States Department of Justice cites no legal authority and does not rise to the level of appellate argument. Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).
Judgment affirmed.