Opinion
January 14, 1999.
The testimony of the undercover officer that his partner, an undercover police cadet, was served an alcoholic beverage by petitioner's bartender without being asked for identification, together with the cadet's driver's license and police identification card showing that at the time he was so served the cadet was under 21 years of age, constituted substantial evidence of petitioner's violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 Alco. Bev. Cont. (1) ( see, O.F.B., Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 212 A.D.2d 373). The penalty imposed by respondent was commensurate with the offense ( see, Matter of Kaminski v. Casale, 244 A.D.2d 555).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.