Opinion
November 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [William Davis, J.].
There was substantial evidence adduced to support respondent's determination that petitioner sold alcoholic beverages to underaged persons, and permitted the premises to become disorderly. In particular, testimony of respondent's witnesses that they were under the age of 21, and that they were served alcoholic beverages by petitioner without displaying proof of age, was adequate to establish the violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1). Scientific evidence of the alcoholic content of the beverages sold to the witnesses was not required (see generally, People v. Leonard, 8 N.Y.2d 60), nor was it necessary that the witnesses present documentary proof of age at the hearing (Koester v. Rochester Candy Works, 194 N.Y. 92; cf., Matter of 36 W. Main v. New York State Liq. Auth., 285 App. Div. 756). In regard to the determination that petitioner permitted the premises to become disorderly, we discern no basis to interfere with the Hearing Officer's conclusion that respondent's witnesses were more credible than those of petitioner. (M.D.M. Tavern Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 157 A.D.2d 559.) Nor, in the circumstances, was the penalty imposed unduly harsh. (Supra.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.