From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

La Trieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 4, 1996
228 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 4, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [William McCooe, J.].


Although petitioner's premises are physically located within the Second Department, which has declared valid State Liquor Authority rule 36.1 (s) ( 9 NYCRR 53.1 [s]) prohibiting licensees from suffering or permitting female entertainers to expose a portion of the breast below the top of the areola, or a simulation thereof, within six feet of patrons, the "six-foot rule" ( see, Matter of Vanda Hodge Pub v. New York State Liq. Auth., 215 A.D.2d 35), this proceeding was properly commenced in this Department, which has declared the six-foot rule null and void for want of statutory authority to promulgate it ( Jay-Jay Cabaret v. State of New York, 215 A.D.2d 172, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 802). We adhere to that precedent, and decline to apply choice-of-law rules where the conflict is between Departments rather than States. Therefore, that part of respondent's determination as found a violation of the six-foot rule is annulled.

However, substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner had substantially altered the premises without its permission in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 99-d (1), had effectuated a corporate change in its stockholders without first obtaining respondent's permission in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 99-d (2), had used a trade name without respondent's permission in violation of State Liquor Authority rule 36.1 (p) ( 9 NYCRR 53.1 [p]), had failed to keep and maintain its books and records on the premises in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (12), and had permitted the premises to become disorderly by suffering or permitting lewd and indecent conduct thereon in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6).

The 60-day suspension and $1,000 bond forfeiture is appropriate for these five different violations and we see no need to remand the action for reconsideration of the penalty, notwithstanding our annulment as to a sixth violation.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

La Trieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 4, 1996
228 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

La Trieste Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LA TRIESTE RESTAURANT CABARET, INC., Petitioner, v. NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
644 N.Y.S.2d 7

Citing Cases

Platinum Pleasures of N.Y., Inc. v. N.Y. Liquor Auth.

Were we to consider the argument, we would reject it (see Matter of Sherwyn Toppin Mktg. Consultants, Inc. v.…

Matter of Stringfellows v. N.Y. State Liquor

Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated February 2, 1999, which imposed a penalty of 30 days…