Opinion
February 1, 1988
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner contends that the penalty imposed by the respondent, i.e., suspension of its liquor license for 52 days and a $1,000 bond forfeiture, for a violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) (sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor) was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233). We disagree. In imposing a penalty, the State Liquor Authority is entitled to consider the nature and gravity of the violation and the previous record and history of the licensee and the licensed premises (see, Awrich Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 92 A.D.2d 925, affd 60 N.Y.2d 645, quoting Matter of Johnston v Rohan, 2 A.D.2d 932). In the latter regard, the record reveals a prior violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and numerous letters of warning. Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 A.D.2d 361).
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.