Opinion
January 21, 1971
Determination of the State Liquor Authority dated May 15, 1970, suspending petitioner's restaurant liquor license for 10 days for suffering or permitting gambling on the licensed premises unanimously annulled on the law; petitioner shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Respondent's Deputy Commissioner who conducted the hearing upon the charges against petitioner recommended, after analyzing the evidence with care and stating the reasons for his conclusion, that he found nothing in the record to indicate that the licensee knew or should have known that gambling occurred on the licensed premises and that the charge had not been sustained. Three members of the Authority, without stating any reason and without making substitute findings, concluded that there was substantial evidence to sustain the charge, rejected the hearing officer's findings and imposed the suspension. The other two members voted to dismiss the charge and send the licensee a letter of warning. The law is well established that the Authority is required to make findings sufficient to inform the court of the basis therefor. (See Matter of Danzo Estate v. New York State Liq. Auth., 34 A.D.2d 521; Matter of Rochdale Mall Wines Liqs. v. State Liq. Auth., 29 A.D.2d 647.) Furthermore, an examination of the record reveals that while two patrons may have engaged in bookmaking activities while in the licensed premises, there is nothing to show that the licensee suffered or permitted gambling on the premises. (See Matter of 2125 Barney's v. New York State Liq. Auth., 16 A.D.2d 252, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 662.) In our opinion, the record does not present substantial evidence to support the charge and the conclusion of the majority of the Authority.
Concur — McGivern, J.P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.