Opinion
Argued January 12, 2001
February 20, 2001.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority dated November 4, 1999, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), and imposed a monetary penalty.
Mehler Buscemi, New York, N.Y. (Martin P. Mehler of counsel), for petitioner.
Thomas G. McKeon, New York, N.Y. (Scott A. Weiner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, FLORIO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the petitioner sold an alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1) (see, Matter of New Stratford Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 257 A.D.2d 454; Matter of Idle Hour Tavern v. Chairman of N.Y. State Liq. Auth., 246 A.D.2d 650; O.F.B., Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 212 A.D.2d 373; see generally, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
The penalty imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., supra).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.