SUPERI OR COURT OF THE STATE OFDELA

WARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY 1 The Circle, Suite 2

J UDGE GEORG ETOW N, DE 19947

Februar y 29, 2 016 Timothy G . Willard, Esquire Robert V. Witsil, Jr., Esquire Fuqua, Yori and Willard, PA Robert V. Witsil , Jr., P.A. 26 The Cir

cle 120 South Bedford Street Georget own, DE

19947 P.O. Box 799 Georget own, DE

19947 RE: Drinx

Incorporated t/a Strawberry Liquo rs v. Alc ohol Beve rage Control Appeals Comm ission and Shambhu, Inc. C.A. No.: S15A-08-002 ESB Dear C ounsel: This is my decis ion o n Drin x Inco rpora ted’s appeal of the Alcoh ol Beverage Control Appeals C omm

ission’s d ecision to a ffirm the Alcoh ol Beverage Control Commissi oner’s dec is io n t o g ran t a r eta il liq uo r st ore lic ens e to Sha mb hu, I nc. Sha mbhu applied for a retail liquor store license for a liquor store to be located at 38223 DuPont Bo ulevard, Unit 1 0, S elbyvi lle, Suss ex County , Dela ware. Drinx operates the ne arest liqu or sto re to S hambhu ’s proposed liq uor store. D rinx’s l iquor store is ap proximately 1700 feet away from Shambhu’s propo sed liqu or store. Drinx and others protested Shambhu’s application for a liquor store license. Commissioner John H. Cordrey held a heari ng on Sham bhu’s app lication on November

20, 2 012. The Comm

iss ioner granted Shambhu’s application two and one-1 Dorsey v. Chrysler Motors Corp. , 1993 WL 189455, at *3 (Del. Super. Apr. 19,

1993)(Citations omitted). 2 half year s later on April 15, 2015. Dr inx appeale d the Com

missio ner’s d ecision

t o the App eal s Co mmiss io n. T he s tan dar d o f re vi ew a pp li cab le t o an app eal fro m a decision of the Com

missio ner to the A

ppeals Comm

ission is set forth in 4 Del.C. § 541(c), which sta

tes “ a decision of the Com missio ner shall

be rever sed only

upon a finding of abuse of

discretio n.” An “ abuse of di scretion” occurs whena decision has “exceeded

the bounds of

reason in v iew of the

circum st ances and has ignored recogn izedrules of law o r practice so as to prod uce injust ice.” 1 The st atutor y provisions that gover

n the grant

ing of a liqu or license

by the Comm

ission erare set forth in Title 4 of the D elaware C ode, wit h the proce dural req

uirem ents set out specific ally

in 4 Del.C. § 54 1. H owe ver , Ti tl e 4 d oes no t sp eci fy th e ti me fr ame that the Comm

issioner must

follow when considering an application for a liquor license. Section 304(a) of

Title 4 requi res the Commissioner to follow the Delaware Administrative

Procedures Act(Cha

pter 101 of

Title 29 o f the De laware

Code) in the performance of all duti es and powers, inclu ding the gra nt of licen ses under 4 Del.C. § 304(a)(4). The Adm

inistrative Procedures Act does not specify the time fram

e that the Comm

issioner m

ust follow

when consi dering an a

pplication

for a liquor license. The Appeals C omm

ission affirmed the Commissi oner’s decision, reasoning that whi le3

itdid take the

Comm issioner a long tim e to m ake a dec ision, tha t i t did not matter because there was no requirement that the C omm ission er had to m ake a dec ision within a specific perio d of ti me. Drinx now ap peals the Ap peals Commissi on’s decision to this court. Dri nx’s sole argum

ent on appea

l is that the

Comm issioner a bused h is discretio n by taking two and one-half years to issue a decision on Shambhu’s application for a liquor l icense. Nothing in t he recor d explains w

hy the C omm

issioner to ok so long. STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 Del.C. §541(d) gove rns this Cour ts review of a fina l decision o f the Appe als Comm ission. Section 541(d) states that the “Superi or C ourt’s review of an appeal shall be on the record and in accordance with the A dmini strative P rocedure s Act, subchapterV of Cha

pter 101 of

Title 29. The Supe rior Cour t’s rev iew shall

take into account the exper ience and specialized com petence of

the agenc y and th e purpose underwhich the agenc y act ed. Fur ther, the Superior Court’ s review , in

the absence of fraud, shall be lim

ited to whe ther the agency ’s deci sion is suppor ted by substantial evidence on the record and free from le gal error.” DISCUSSION Drinx argues tha

t the Com missio ner abused

his discre tion by

taking two and one-half years to make a decisio n on Shambhu’s ap plicatio n for a liqu or license

. The4

Appeals Comm

ission agreed that

the Com missio ner took a l ong tim e. How ever, th e Appeals Comm

ission could n ot find that

the delay constitute d an abuse of

discretio n requiring reversal of the Com

missio ner’s d ecision bec ause the Comm issioner had no oblig ation

to ma ke a decis ion within a

certain period of t

ime. I agree

with t h e Commissi on’s reasoning. The Comm issioner hadno obligation under the a

pplicable statutes and rules t o make a decision

within a c ertain

period of time. Therefore, given

t hat Drinx had no right

to insist tha

t the Com

missio ner m ake his dec ision within a specific time , there can be no vi olation of a ny stat ute or rule . I note t

hat “ abuse of discretio n” refers to the Com missio ner’s a

nalyti cal and r easoni ng process t hat the Commissioner follows w hen ma king a deci sionto grant or deny a n application for a liquor license. The Com

missio ner’s r

easoning is simply not im plicatedhere. I

have affirmed the Ap peals Commissi on’s decision to affir m the Comm

issioner’ s decision to grant Shambhu a liquor license. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ E. Scott Bradley E. Sco tt B rad ley ESB/sal cc: Prothon otary