Opinion
April 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Elliott Wilk, J.].
Although testimony of one of the witnesses inadvertently was not tape recorded and thus, has not been transcribed, we find that other testimony in the record affords a complete review of the controversy (CPLR 2001). The structure built by petitioner to house a large block of ice so patrons could consume alcoholic beverages poured by the bartender down the block of ice constitutes substantial evidence that petitioner constructed a second bar, counter or similar contrivance in its premise without the requisite permission of respondent (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 100; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). We do not find the penalty imposed disproportionate to the offenses (Matter of Lerner Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 18 A.D.2d 911).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.