Case ID: so2d_462/html/0839-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VILLAGE ZOO, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.
    No. 84-760.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 9, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1985.
    Raymond A. Doumar of Allsworth, Dou-mar, Cazel & Curtis, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Louisa E. Hargrett, Staff Atty., Dept, of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Although we agree with appellant that the penalty imposed upon it by the appellee seems severe, we are nevertheless compelled to affirm because of the legislature’s broad grant of discretionary authority to the agency as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978) and Lash v. State of Florida, Dept. of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reject appellant’s contention that the agency added any findings of fact inconsistent with the hearing officer’s findings.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.