Community Board 3 is considering easing its restrictions on new liquor licenses in areas that are already packed with bars, as long as the newcomers close early and serve only beer and wine — not hard alcohol.

The change would apply to nightlife-heavy strips like Avenue A, where CB3 has a longstanding policy of not approving any new liquor licenses unless they clearly benefit the community.

That policy was designed to discourage new bars, but it has also wound up warding off other businesses like cafes that want to serve patrons a glass of wine with lunch, and high-end beer shops that want to hold early evening tastings, said Susan Stetzer, district manager of CB3.

“There have been businesses that were caught in [the policy] that some people think were never intended to be,” Stetzer said.

The new policy would be more welcoming of daytime establishments — those closing by about midnight and serving only beer and wine — in keeping with CB3′s efforts to increase foot traffic during the day and avoid new late-night establishments.

“We’re interested in preventing problems,” said David Crane, a member of CB3′s State Liquor Authority Task Force. “If they’re not open until 4 a.m., they’re much less likely to become problems.”

In addition to Avenue A, other parts of the East Village and Lower East Side that would be affected by the change include Avenue B; Avenue C; St. Mark’s Place between First Avenue and Avenue A, and between Second Avenue and Third Avenue; Ludlow Street between Houston and Delancey streets; and East Fourth Street between avenues A and B.

The community board’s role in liquor license applications is advisory, with the State Liquor Authority making the final decision. The SLA generally approves all beer and wine licenses, regardless of the community board’s view, but CB3 hopes to influence the SLA on earlier closing times.

CB3 will not vote on the proposed policy change until after a public hearing next month, said Alexandra Militano, chairwoman of CB3′s SLA Task Force.

“We feel we need more community input before we can come to a decision,” she said.

By next week, the board will send a letter to all block and tenant associations that would be affected to let them know about the meeting, which will be held March 28 at 6:30 p.m. at a to-be-determined location.

Source: http://www.dnainfo.com/20120207/lower-east-side-east-village/east-village-liquor-license-restrictions-may-ease-if-bars-close-early#ixzz1lj4dZGlY

The website — set to launch next month — will let New Yorkers search for an establishment by name or location, and scroll through its license and violation history, similar to the city’s online restaurant inspection database.

Though license information has been available online, the authority currently requires people to submit Freedom of Information requests to find out about violations cited for places that sell booze.

“Just for them to have this information at their fingertips would be very useful,” SLA spokesman William Crowley told DNAinfo, which first reported the database’s creation.

It’s unclear what kind of violations will be posted.

Crowley didn’t return calls to amNewYork Monday for further comment.

The announcement thrilled locals that are often disturbed by noisy drunks stumbling out of bars.

Corey Johnson, chair of Community Board 4 — which covers Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea, said relationships between local bars and neighbors is “one of the biggest issues” the board deals with.

“The more transparency information that residents in the city are able to get from the SLA about establishments that are potentially doing things that aren’t in line with their agreements when they got their license is a good thing,” Johnson told amNewYork.

But the nightlife industry said they were annoyed the state didn’t ask them their opinion of the new site, which hasn’t been shown to them.

Rick Sampson, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, said he was worried violation information posted “could be dangerous” to nightlife establishments if enough context isn’t published on the site.

Source: http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/new-website-will-let-nyers-check-city-bars-violation-histories-1.3490937

Club Escuelita, the legendary gay club that’s been a fixture near the Port Authority since 1996, says the State Liquor Authority is trying to put it out of business over two minor violations.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Escuelita charges the SLA is cutting corners in a bid to take away their license, a move the club charges is clearly aimed at clearing gay, lesbian, transgenders and minorities out of the gentrifying area.

“I also believe that we are no longer welcome on West 39th Street as minorities scare the mostly white tourists who patronize the newly built and expensive boutique hotels” on the block, owner Sayvon Zabar said in an affidavit.

Justice Geoffrey Wright signed an order this morning temporarily barring the SLA from moving against the club pending a full hearing on Jan. 12, when he will also consider the club’s request to order sensitivity training for the agency.

The SLA is going back to court tomorrow to try to convince the judge to change his mind. One of the club’s lawyers, Tom Shanahan, said many of the club’s customers and performers – including several drag queens – will be on hand to show their support at the hearing because “we can’t figure out why the SLA is being such a drag.”

The agency notified the club that it would not renew their liquor license, which is set to expire next month, because of two incidents last year. In one, the club’s manager was arrested for allegedly assaulting a patron. In the other, a bartender was accused of selling a drink to an undercover minor.

Zabar said in court papers the manager denies any wrongdoing, and noted that the criminal case against him is still pending. He also said the club is investigating the alleged sale of alcohol to a minor, but noted the club, which had been admitting people 18 and up, had a strict wristband policy in place to insure that no minors were served booze. The club – which has been a launchpad for the likes Lady Bunny and RuPaul – wrote the SLA in December to say they’re now barring people under 21 from going to the club.

A rep for the SLA did not return an email for comment.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of legal precedent establishing that the SLA cannot deny a liquor license on the basis of speculation that the new ownership will continue operating in the same fashion as the previous troubled establishment.  The attorney on the case correctly pointed out that that the new owner should not be penalized for what happened under the previous ownership.

Moreover, the shift from a nightclub to a karaoke lounge is critical under these facts.  The conversion to a karaoke lounge without a doubt advances the public interest.  The new ownership intends to remove the club’s dance floor and replace it with 10 separate karaoke rooms.

Community 10 members should be applauding the new ownership for envisioning the transformation of a previously problematic nightclub into a karaoke lounge.

This week, Community Board 10 tabled a recommendation that would require establishments to stop serving liquor after 2 a.m. in order to get more information from its economic development committee, which proposed the rule.

“This is something that has been tabled by our full board,” said the chair of Community Board 10, Henrietta Lyle. “It’s a recommendation from our economic development committee. A recommendation. They brought that to the full board. It’s not under consideration at this time. We have tabled this issue pending information and better clarification.”

Bars licensed to serve liquor in New York can do so as late as 4 a.m., according to the state Alcohol Beverage Control law.

Most restaurants and bars that apply for liquor licenses come to agreements with their respective community boards before applying, said a spokesperson for the New York State Liquor Authority, which is in charge of granting licenses to bars in the state.

Harlem bar owners said they didn’t understand why the community board’s economic development committee would support such a move.

“New York’s a unique city,” said Gareth Fagan, one of the owners of Harlem Tavern on Frederick Douglass Boulevard near 116th Street. “People work 24 hours a day. People want to be able to grab a drink on the way home or grab something to eat on the way home. And that’s what made it great is that you’d be able to go into a diner or a restaurant and get a full meal at 1 a.m. or at 4 a.m. — whatever the case may be.”

He added that he hadn’t heard of anyone who was in favor of the recommendation.

“I don’t understand why one neighborhood would choose to close at 2 a.m. and another down the street would be allowed to open till 4 a.m.,” he said. “I think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.”

Ousmane Keita, who is co-owner of Bier International, a beer garden at Frederick Douglass Blvd and 113th Street, said none of the people he’d talked to supported closing their tabs early.

“It’s definitely not a good idea considering that this neighborhood is starting to boom,” Keita said. “Some of our clients come in late just to have a drink and they don’t want to be rushed.”

The next general meeting of Community Board 10 will be held on Wednesday, January 4. The board’s economic development committee meets next on Thursday, Jan. 12.

Community boards on the Upper West Side, in Hell’s Kitchen and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn have recently opposed bar, restaurant and nightclub liquor licenses over noise, crowds and safety.

Source: http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2011/dec/14/bars-stop-serving-liquor-early/#

A rally was held recently on Saturday, December 17th, led by Hempstead Town Supervisor Kate Murray and Councilman Gary Hudes.

As far as I’m aware, this is the first attempt by a major movie theatre to seek a liquor license in New York (please correct me if I’m wrong by commenting).

Earlier in the week, Murray and Hudes laid out their position against AMC’s liquor license application in a letter sent to SLA Chairman Dennis Rosen. Five reasons were cited:

• First, they argued that a “wholesome community theatre” was not the proper place for the sale and consumption of alcohol and that such consumption would “threaten the safety and well being of theatre patrons.”
• Second, the theatre has traditionally been a popular destination for children to enjoy a couple of hours of entertainment in a safe environment.
• Third, parents who drop off their children for a night at the movies have legitimate concerns about exposing their children to drunken patrons.
• Fourth, the consumption of alcohol in a dark movie theater is an invitation for “mischief, underage drinking, vandalism, and violence.”
• Fifth, the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was a dangerous proposition given the “busy and chaotic” parking situation outside of the theater.

A poll by the Levittown Patch asking whether AMC should be permitted a liquor license revealed that 48 percent supported the liquor license application and 52 percent were opposed.

In response to the criticism, AMC invited Murray and Hudes to meet with representatives of the company to discuss the plan. Instead, Murray and Hudes called on AMC to withdraw their application for a liquor license until it met with the community to consider the concerns and views of its neighbors.

However, all liquor license applicants are required to file a 30 day notice with the local municipality/community board and wait those 30 days before filing its application. This obligation is met by the applicant by just sending the notice. The applicant is not required to have met with the municipality prior to mailing its application to the SLA. Moreover, more recently AMC issued a statement in which it noted that Murray and Hudes never voiced their concerns with AMC directly and they always intended to work with local officials to hear and address and concerns. In fact, AMC stated that they reached out to local officials but their calls were not returned.

The Case for Approval of AMC’s Liquor License

Alcohol is served in plenty of places and events where kids are present without such backlash and opposition including, sporting events, restaurants, concerts, and weddings. Several establishments are in fact well-known for mixing a gaming environment with alcohol, e.g. Dave and Busters and bowling alleys.

With that said, no details have been released as to how exactly AMC will deal with the threat of underage drinking or whether the sale of alcohol will be limited to certain parts of the theatre or restricted to certain movies or showings.

Information obtained is reviewed to determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring administrative charges against a licensee. A disciplinary proceeding is commenced by the issuance of a Notice of Pleading setting forth the alleged violations. The licensee may enter one of the following pleas; (1) Not Guilty; (2) No Contest; or (3) Conditional No Contest. If the licensee fails to respond, the matter is treated as a No Contest plea.

If a licensee pleads not guilty, a hearing date is scheduled with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). At the hearing, the SLA and the licensee may produce witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and submit evidence in support of their case. Findings are made by the ALJ and presented to the Members of the Authority. Again, the ALJ’s findings are not final, only the Members of the Authority may make a final determination.

• If the licensee pleads No Contest, the case is sent directly to the Members of the Authority for final determination of the appropriate penalty.
• If the licensee submits a conditional no contest plea, the licensee’s offer is forwarded to the Members of the Authority for final determination. If the offer is rejected by the Members, the matter is returned to Counsel’s Office to schedule an administrative hearing.
• Each case brought to the Members of the Authority is examined on its individual merits. If a disciplinary charge is sustained, the Members of the Authority may impose one or more of the following:
  • License suspension, cancellation or revocation [ABCL § 17(3)];
  • A monetary penalty, [ABCL § 17(3)];
  • A bond forfeiture [ABCL § 112 and 9 NYCRR 81(3)];
  • A two-year ban against the issuance of a license to any part of the building containing the revoked licensed premises [ABCL § 113(1)].

This complete ABC Law can be accessed at: Laws of New York

Disciplinary Penalty Definitions

• Revocation – terminates the license and bans the licensee from holding any liquor license for two years.
• Cancellation – terminates the license, but does not ban the licensee from applying for a license for two years.
• Suspension – prohibits consumption or sale of alcoholic beverages for a designated period.
• Civil penalty – monetary fine that may be levied against the licensee with or as an alternative to a revocation, cancellation, or suspension.
• Bond Claim – a claim made against the licensees surety bond.
• Proscription – prohibits the issuance of a liquor license for any part of the licensed premises for two years. Can only be issued when a license is revoked.
• Summary Suspension – under the State Administrative Procedure Act, a State agency is authorized to summarily suspend a license when the agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action.

Source: http://www.sla.ny.gov/disciplinary-proceedings

The State Liquor Authority has issued new rules concerning the application process for permits issued pursuant to Section 99 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, commonly referred to as “all
night” or New Year’s Eve” permits. These permits allow retail on premises licenses to continuing serving alcoholic beverages after 4 am (or earlier in some counties).

The new rules provide as follows:

Applications for these permits must be filed at least 45 days in advance.  Notice of the licensee’s intent to apply for the permit must be sent to the local police department or, if there is no local police department, to the County Sheriff’s Department. The licensee must include, with the application, proof that this notice was mailed.  Acceptable proof is either (1) a copy of the notice and a certified mail receipt card or (2) the original, or a copy of the notice stamped and signed by the police department.

In deciding whether to issue a permit to a licensee, the Authority will consider the licensee’s disciplinary history (including pending charges) and whether, given the nature of the event, the licensee has adequate facilities and security plans.  The permit must be displayed in a conspicuous place where the event is held.  The Authority’s Licensing Bureau will make a decision on each application within 10 business days of filing.  If the Licensing Bureau denies the application, the licensee can request review of the decision by a Member of the Authority. Such requests should be sent to the Office of Counsel at the Authority’s Albany office.  A Member of the Authority will review the decision and make a final determination within 10 business days of receipt of the request.

*** Please note that this permit is not being issued for NYE 2012 because it falls on a Sunday. Please see our post here.

When attempting to obtain an on-premise liquor license for your establishment, the first hurdle is often your local community board.  Unfortunately, it is well known within the nightlife community that such committees often include self-appointed community activists whose sole purpose is to derail your plans by citing any of a dozen reasons explaining why they choose to vote against approval of your license.  Often times, some of the reasons provided are based on mere speculation.  For example, the objection may be based on the operation of a previous owner.  The previous owner may have operated the establishment in such a manner so that it became a public nuisance.  It may have formerly been a magnet for drug trafficking, stabbings, and even shootings. It may have received numerous violations involving sales to minors, unlicensed security, purchases of liquor from unauthorized vendors, etc.  The disfunctional operation of a previous owner should not be imputed on a new liquor license applicant.

Courts have supported this line of reasoning.  In 1995, a bar named The Buzz was denied an on-premise liquor license by the SLA because it argued the public interest would not be promoted by the issuance of the license due to the history of liquor violations and reported criminal activity at the location.

The court overturned the decision of the SLA denying the license, holding that the prior history of the premises, standing alone, especially without a showing of an ownership interest between the applicant and the former owner of the premises, was insufficient to warrant disapproval of the application.  Moreover, there was no factual support that the prior history of the premises created a degree of risk that would be continued by the applicant’s operation of its bar.

Citation: Matter of 512-3rd St., d/b/a The Buzz v. New York State Liquor Authority, 217 A.D.2d 1010 (4th Dep’t 1995).

The transfer of a liquor license is often hotly contested, particularly when the previous licensee was hit with a proceeding to revoke or cancel their license due to any of several typical violations (sales to minors, unlicensed security, purchase from unauthorized wholesaler, etc.).  The major concern being that the new applicant is a front for the previous ownership or that the previous ownership will maintain an interest in the new establishment.  However, as a matter of law suspicion or speculation is not enough to deny an applicant a liquor license.

In one case, the applicant, a restaurant in Plattsburgh (Clinton Country) was denied an on-premise liquor license. The SLA provided four reasons: (1) the landlord committed a number of liquor license violations when it operated the premises under the same d/b/a name, resulting in the revocation of its liquor license; (2) the applicant lacked experience in operating an establishment licensed to sell liquor for on-premises consumption; (3) the applicant intended to continue its financial interest and active participation in a pizza business right next door; and (4) the applicant did not produce a sales agreement to show that the former licensee relinquished all interests in the business.

The court disagreed with the SLA, overturned their decision, and issued the liquor license noting that the record failed to disclose a rational basis for the disapproval.  The SLA failed to provide adequate support for their speculation that the landlord may have a continued ownership interest in the business and that the applicant’s principals were not the sole and exclusive owners of the business.

Citation: Matter of RSSM, Inc. d/b/a Woodstock v. New York State Liq. Auth., 204 A.D.2d 906 (3rd Dep’t 1994).