Opinion
June 13, 1988
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, adopting the findings of the Hearing Officer crediting the testimony of witnesses to the effect that petitioner permitted six minors to enter its cocktail lounge and purchase alcoholic beverages, and sustaining the charge against the petitioner, was supported by substantial evidence (see, e.g., Matter of Goldpap Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 19 N.Y.2d 968, revg 25 A.D.2d 642; Matter of Avon Bar Grill v O'Connell, 301 N.Y. 150; Matter of Silver Grill v State Liq. Auth., 56 A.D.2d 977; Matter of Oudemool v New York State Liq. Auth., 50 A.D.2d 1095; Matter of Maniccia v State Liq. Auth., 5 A.D.2d 929).
In addition, the penalty imposed, a suspension of petitioner's on-premises liquor license for a period of 40 days, 20 days to be served forthwith and 20 days deferred, was not disproportionate to the offense (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222), in view of the circumstances of the case, including the fact that six minors were drinking alcohol in the bar and five of them had consumed so much alcohol that they appeared intoxicated to police (see, Matter of Nycrest Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 96 A.D.2d 563; cf., Matter of Boston Post Rd. Liq. Store v State Liq. Auth., 51 A.D.2d 569; Matter of Oudemool v New York State Liq. Auth., supra; Matter of D.H.K. Rest v New York State Liq. Auth., 31 A.D.2d 525, affd 28 N.Y.2d 836). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.