IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Gold Room, Inc. :

:

v. : No. 1656 C.D. 2019

: ARGUED: November 12, 2020

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge 

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge (P)

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: December 16, 2020

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals from the October 23, 

2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court), which, 

following a de novo hearing, sustained the appeal of The Gold Room, Inc. (Licensee) 

and reversed the Board’s denial of Licensee’s application for renewal of its 

restaurant liquor license (the License). In reversing, the trial court considered the 

evidence presented at an April 27, 2018 administrative hearing and at hearings held 

before the trial court on January 24-25, 2019, and concluded that non-renewal of the 

License was not warranted under Section 470(a.1) of the Liquor Code (Code).1 After 

careful review, we reverse.

I. Background

Licensee operates a restaurant and bar located at 518-520 Edgemont Avenue, 

Chester, Pennsylvania (the Premises). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 251a. The 

License for the Premises is subject to a July 11, 2012 conditional licensing 

1 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 4-470(a.1).
2

agreement (CLA),

2 which requires, in pertinent part, that Licensee direct one security 

person to patrol the exterior of the Premises at least once per hour from 9:00 p.m. 

until one-half hour after closing. R.R. at 250a-51a. Per the CLA, Licensee is 

required to document, in a log, the time, date, and personnel involved in each patrol. 

This log is required to be maintained as a business record pursuant to Section 

493(12) of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-493(12).

3

 Id. at 251a. The CLA further requires

that Licensee attend quarterly meetings with the chief, or other designated officer, 

of the Chester City Police Department (CCPD) to discuss the safe operation of the 

Premises. Id. at 252a. Such meetings are to continue until the CCPD police chief, 

or his designee, indicates in writing that meetings are no longer necessary. Id. 

Licensee must also maintain records of the date, time, and substance of such 

meetings pursuant to Section 493(12) of the Code. Id. The terms of the CLA are to 

remain in effect until rescinded by a subsequent agreement. Id. at 253a. 

By letter dated November 20, 2017, the Board’s Bureau of Licensing (Bureau) 

notified Licensee that its review of the Premises’ operations indicated that Licensee 

may have abused its licensing privilege. R.R. at 237a. The allegations of abuse were 

based on a September 20, 2010 adjudicated citation for permitting smoking where 

prohibited and several incidents of disturbances “at or immediately adjacent” to the 

Premises from December 1, 2015, to the present. Id. at 237a, 243a-46a. These 

2 A CLA is an agreement between the Board and an applicant that places additional 

restrictions on the license in question. Section 470(a)(1) of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-470(a)(1). Such 

an agreement is binding on the applicant. Id. The basis for Licensee’s CLA is a September 20, 

2010 adjudicated citation for permitting smoking where prohibited on the Premises and 12 

incidents of disturbance at or adjacent to the Premises. R.R. at 244a-45a, 248a-49a.

3 Section 493 of the Code sets forth unlawful acts relative to liquor, malt and brewed 

beverages, and licenses. 47 P.S. § 4-493. Paragraph 12 of Section 493 makes it unlawful for a 

licensee to “fail to keep for a period of at least two years” records covering the operation of the 

licensed business. 47 P.S. § 4-493(12).
3

incidents included “fights, disorderly operations, drugs, shootings, homicide, and 

assaults.” Id. at 237a. The Bureau further alleged Licensee’s President, Hong T. 

Huynh (Huynh), and Secretary/Treasurer, Chhoeung V. Ngo (Ngo), may no longer 

be reputable as required by Sections 102 and 470 of the Code.4 Id. In furtherance 

of its review, the Bureau sought business records from December 1, 2015, to the 

present, relating to security patrols of the Premises and meetings held with the 

CCPD, as required by the CLA. Id. at 238a. 

By letter dated February 27, 2018, the Bureau reiterated its prior records 

request and expanded the applicable time frame to include those documents retained

from July 11, 2012, to the present. Id. at 258a-59a. The Bureau stated that it would

presume that any records not received by April 13, 2018, did not exist. Id. at 259a. 

Subsequent correspondence from the Bureau dated April 17, 2018, indicated that it 

had not received the records sought. Id. at 264a.

A hearing on the renewal of the License was held on April 27, 2018. The 

Bureau called several members of the CCPD to testify as to the alleged incidents of 

disturbance taking place on the Premises. Licensee presented the testimony of Brian 

Clore, manager of the Premises, and Licensee’s President, Huynh. 

A. Bureau Evidence

1. February 2016 Incidents

The Bureau introduced two police reports detailing incidents that took place 

outside the Premises. The first, dated February 7, 2016, alleged that a verbal 

altercation took place between bar manager Clore and Roosevelt Turner, an officer 

4 Section 102 of the Code defines restaurant in pertinent part as “a reputable place operated 

by responsible persons of good reputation . . . .” 47 P.S. § 1-102. Section 470(a)(1) of the Code 

relevantly provides that the Board may deny renewal of a license if the applicant has “by his own 

act become a person of ill repute . . . .” 47 P.S. § 4-470(a)(1).
4

with the CCPD. Id. at 267a. As a result of this altercation, Clore was charged with 

terroristic threats, obstructing the administration of law, failure to disperse, and 

disorderly conduct. Id. The second report, dated February 20, 2016, alleged that an 

individual was observed urinating outside the Premises. Id. at 270a. A baggie 

containing what appeared to be cocaine was found following a search of his person. 

Id. 

2. May 1, 2016 Incident

Katrina Blackwell, a sergeant with the CCPD, testified that she worked in the 

vicinity of the Premises during an overnight shift on May 1, 2016. R.R. at 9a-10a. 

Sergeant Blackwell called dispatch to report a fight after observing “a lot of 

movement” in the Premises. Id. at 11a. She described the atmosphere inside as 

“chaotic,” with approximately 150 people present and several fights taking place. 

Id. at 12a-13a. The patrons involved were “throwing punches and throwing chairs.” 

Id. at 12a. Licensee’s security personnel attempted to intervene, without success. 

Id. at 13a-14a. Sergeant Blackwell called for additional law enforcement, which 

resulted in approximately 15 different police departments located within Delaware 

County responding to the incident. Id. at 14a. While clearing patrons from the 

Premises, Sergeant Blackwell received a call that shots had been fired nearby. Id. at 

15a. That incident resulted in a homicide, which Sergeant Blackwell later 

understood took place in a “total[ly] different location” from the Premises. Id. at 

18a, 26a.

Victor Heness, a detective with the CCPD, investigated the May 1, 2016 

homicide, which occurred at the intersection of Fifth Street and City Hall Place. Id. 

at 126a. As part of his investigation, Detective Heness gathered video surveillance 
5

recordings from businesses located nearby, including the Premises and a barbershop 

located on Fifth Street. Id. at 127a, 140a. 

Footage acquired from the Premises depicted known members of a “specific 

gang within the city” leaving the Premises at approximately 1:18:45 a.m. Id. at 132a, 

240a; April 27, 2018 Administrative Hearing, Exhibit B-11. These individuals

retrieved guns from their vehicles after leaving the Premises. R.R. at 141a. Shortly 

thereafter, at 1:20:13 a.m., a fight between two gangs began inside the Premises. Id. 

at 132a, 138a; April 27, 2018 Administrative Hearing, Exhibit B-11. Officers with 

the CCPD broke up a second fight, which resulted in one arrest. R.R. at 132a. The 

CCPD did not have enough officers present to effectuate more than one arrest that 

night. Id. at 148a. The victim of the May 1, 2016 homicide, Anthony Moore, was 

involved in one of the fights. Id. at 132a. Detective Heness described the scene 

inside the Premises as a “complete melee.” Id. at 145a.

Security equipment from the barbershop on Fifth Street recorded the 

perpetrators of Moore’s murder, the identified known gang members, standing on 

the corner of Fifth Street and Edgemont Avenue and “wait[ing] for [Moore]” at 

approximately 1:21:09 a.m.5 Id. at 141a, 143a; April 27, 2018 Administrative 

Hearing, Exhibit B-11. Moore’s homicide was recorded by the barbershop’s 

security equipment at 1:22:31 a.m. Id. at 150a; April 27, 2018 Administrative 

Hearing, Exhibit B-11. The fight inside the Premises was ongoing at that time. R.R. 

at 144a. Detective Heness testified that between 15 and 20 police cars from 

neighboring law enforcement agencies arrived to assist with the altercations 

5 The time stamp from the barbershop’s video footage indicates this took place four hours 

later, at 5:21 a.m. April 27, 2018 Administrative Hearing, Exhibit B-11. Detective Heness 

testified that the time stamp for this was off by four hours. R.R. at 140a.
6

occurring inside the Premises and with the homicide at Fifth Street and City Hall 

Place. Id. 

3. July 16, 2016 Incident

Jonathon Ross, an officer with the CCPD, responded to a report of shots fired 

near the Premises on July 16, 2016, at 1:41 a.m. Id. at 104a-05a. When Officer Ross 

arrived at the scene, he observed 20 or 30 people quickly exiting the Premises and 

other individuals running in the street. Id. at 106a. Officer Ross spoke with 

Licensee’s staff, who advised that a fight had taken place and the patrons involved 

were ejected from the Premises. Id. Those individuals walked north after leaving 

the Premises. Id. at 107a, 120a. Shots were fired thereafter. Id. at 107a. The CCPD 

recovered shell casings from a location approximately 25 to 30 yards north of the 

Premises. Id. at 108a, 110a. 

Officer Ross did not know the identities of those involved in the shooting or 

whether they had been patrons of the Premises. Id. at 115a. Officer Ross recalled 

that one patron was injured during the fight inside the Premises, but he refused 

medical treatment. Id. at 108a. 

4. August 13, 2017 Incident

Merlyn Lee, a captain with the CCPD, testified that she was dispatched to the 

Premises on August 13, 2017, at approximately 1:30 a.m., for a report of fighting. 

Id. at 32a-33a. When Captain Lee arrived, accompanied by four other officers, she 

observed many patrons leaving the Premises who appeared to be 

“riled up,” although they were not engaged in a physical confrontation. Id. at 33a, 

35a. Most of the crowd dispersed, but Captain Lee testified that patrons involved in 

the fight inside the Premises continued to “mill[] about” and argue with one another. 
7

Id. at 38a. Captain Lee stated that it was “[n]ot unusual at all” for the CCPD to 

respond to a call from the Premises around closing time. Id. at 33a. 

Approximately 10 minutes after Captain Lee arrived, she heard gunfire 

coming from the south, at a location 40 to 50 yards from the Premises. Id. at 39a. 

Captain Lee identified three victims of the shooting incident as patrons of the 

Premises. Id. at 42a-43a. One victim was armed and he advised Captain Lee that 

he fired his weapon in retaliation after a friend of his was shot. Id. at 65a. 

Captain Lee did not know if the shooter had been a patron of the Premises or 

whether any weapons used in the shooting were inside the Premises prior to the 

incident. Id. at 45a, 62a. A brief video provided by one of Licensee’s patrons 

allegedly showed another patron carrying a gun while inside the Premises; however, 

Captain Lee could not identify the individual. Id. at 57a-58a. 

Captain Lee agreed that other businesses, including a boxing gym, the Fifth 

Street barbershop, and a jazz club, are located within the vicinity of the shooting, 

which occurred at the intersection of Fifth Street and Edgemont Avenue. Id. at 52a, 

56a. However, those establishments were not open at the time of the incident. Id. 

at 53a.

B. Licensee’s Evidence

Clore testified that he has managed the Premises since 2015 and he oversees 

its security and operations. Id. at 160a-61a. He works every day from 11:00 a.m. to 

2:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Id. at 189a. A metal detector, identification 

(ID) scanner, and metal detector wand are located at the front entrance to the 

Premises. Id. at 165a. Patrons must pass through the metal detector prior to entering

the building. Id. at 166a. These security measures have existed since the Premises 

opened. Id. IDs are scanned at the front entrance after 9:00 p.m. Id. at 196a. Prior 
8

to that time, IDs are checked at the bar. Id. Male patrons are patted down and female 

patrons are “wanded.” Id. at 167a. During the week, Licensee employs four security 

personnel, one stationed near the bathroom and three roaming the floor. Id. at 168a. 

On Fridays and Saturdays, Licensee employs two armed security guards in addition 

to the regular security personnel. Id. One of Licensee’s security personnel patrols

the perimeter outside the Premises every hour to make sure “everything is calm.” 

Id. at 180a, 193a. 

Clore acknowledged that he is aware of the CLA’s terms. Id. at 206a. He 

discusses the Premises’ security measures with the CCPD Commissioner, Otis Blair, 

once a month. Id. at 185a, 204a. These discussions take place by telephone, unless 

a “dire need” arises to discuss matters in person. Id. at 204a. As a result of these 

meetings, Licensee has an arrangement with the CCPD to provide police assistance 

at closing time. Id. at 186a. Commissioner Blair has not lodged any complaints 

about the Premises with Clore. Id. Licensee provides law enforcement access to 

its security footage when requested. Id. at 174a.

Clore admitted that fights have taken place inside the Premises but he advised 

that Licensee bans the patrons involved. Id. at 171a, 173a. Banned patrons are 

identified through photos taken by the front door security cameras and kept in a 

folder by the security station at the front entrance. Id. at 198a-99a. The security 

equipment on the Premises consists of 64 cameras on the inside of the Premises, 7

cameras outside at the front of the building, and 4 cameras in the rear. Id. at 202a.

A digital video recorder (DVR) stores surveillance footage, which is recorded 

“24/7.” Id. If a fight occurs on the Premises, one of Licensee’s employees calls the 

police from the kitchen. Id. at 169a-70a. The purpose of this policy is to “get the 
9

police out front,” so that any ejected patrons will “act accordingly because the police 

are there.” Id. at 170a. 

Huynh is the president of Licensee and its sole owner. Id. at 225a, 228a. 

Huynh’s husband, Ngo, transferred his shares of Licensee to her in November 2017. 

Id. at 228a. 

C. Bureau Recommendation and Board Decision

Having reviewed the evidence presented by the parties, the hearing examiner 

agreed with the Bureau that Licensee had abused its licensing privilege. Id. at 371a. 

This conclusion was based on a finding of disorderly operations in and outside the 

Premises, which the hearing examiner attributed to owners Huynh and Ngo, whom 

the hearing examiner deemed no longer reputable. Id. at 371a-72a. The hearing 

examiner also found that Licensee failed to produce business records related to 

security patrols made on the Premises and meetings held with the CCPD. Id. at 372a. 

The hearing examiner recommended that the License be renewed, placed in 

safekeeping, and sold to a bona fide third party. Id. 

The Board disagreed with the hearing examiner’s recommendation and denied

Licensee’s renewal application. Bd. op. at 33. The Board opined that Licensee’s 

adjudicated citation from 2010 alone demonstrated an abuse of the License and an 

unwillingness to comply with the Code and/or Board regulations. Id. at 25. The 

Board was further troubled by the charges filed against Clore, which involved a 

verbal altercation with a CCPD police officer. Id. at 27. The Board found it 

problematic that Licensee “permitted” an intoxicated individual to urinate outside 

the Premises. Id. Moreover, despite Licensee’s employment of security personnel, 

violent incidents continued to occur within and outside the Premises. Id. Licensee’s 
10

failure to provide the business records requested by the Bureau violated the terms of 

the CLA. Id. at 29.

Additionally, Licensee’s failure to notify the Board that Ngo’s ownership 

interest in Licensee transferred to Huynh, as required by Section 5.91(a) of the 

Board’s regulations,6 demonstrated Licensee’s failure to operate the Premises within 

the requirements of the Code and the Board’s regulations. Id. at 32. Finally, the 

Board deemed Huynh and Ngo to be no longer reputable, as they were ultimately 

responsible for the Premises and failed to implement sufficient and timely corrective 

measures to address problems with its operations. Id. at 33.

Licensee appealed to the trial court, which heard the matter de novo, and took 

additional evidence at hearings held on January 24-25, 2019. 

D. Trial Court Evidence

Clore reiterated his prior testimony regarding security equipment and 

procedures implemented at the Premises. R.R. at 379a-87a. He further testified that 

security patrols are detailed in a logbook, which is also used to document the security 

personnel working on a given evening as well as any incidents that take place on the 

Premises. R.R. at 387a. Id. Clore indicated that “there has always been a logbook”

on the Premises. Id. at 411a. Licensee introduced a logbook documenting security 

patrols that occurred after the April 27, 2018 administrative hearing. Id. at 392a.7

6 Section 5.91(a) of the Board’s regulations requires that any change in a licensee’s officers, 

directors, or stockholders be reported to the Board within 15 days. 40 Pa. Code § 5.91(a).

7 The Board objected to the introduction of the logbook as irrelevant. R.R. at 388a. The 

trial court accepted the document but made it clear that only remedial measures taken prior to the 

April 27, 2018 administrative hearing would be considered. Id. at 391a-92a.
11

Huynh testified that she has never been arrested or charged with any criminal 

offense. Id. at 427a. Her husband, Ngo, does not hold any position or office for 

Licensee. Id. at 426a. 

Cyphodeen Simpson, a paralegal for Licensee’s counsel, testified that he 

attempted to file documents relating to the transfer of Ngo’s interest in Licensee to 

Huynh. Id. at 431a. The Board’s electronic filing system would not allow Simpson 

to complete the filing, however, as the License was under review and not “active.” 

Id. at 431a-33a. Simpson did file the relevant documents with the Pennsylvania 

Department of Revenue. Id. at 436a.

CCPD Commissioner Blair confirmed that, during the period from 2015 to 

2018, he met with Clore to discuss the safety of Licensee’s patrons. Id. at 461a. 

Commissioner Blair stated that Licensee’s management and security personnel were 

cooperative with the CCPD “99.9 percent of the time,” and they complied with the 

CCPD’s security recommendations “99 percent of the time.” Id. at 461a, 492a.

These recommendations concerned “various topics at various time[s],” and included 

methods for improving the control of patrons entering and exiting the Premises. Id. 

at 491a. Commissioner Blair instructed his officers, if available while on duty 

between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., to assist Licensee with crowd control and traffic 

flow and to act “as a deterrent.” Id. at 491a, 498a. Commissioner Blair testified that 

he took such action earlier in his career as a captain and sergeant “when [the 

Premises] first opened [its] doors.” Id. at 499a. 

Commissioner Blair described the crime scene from the May 1, 2016 

homicide as a “very large area” that extended away from the Premises, up the street 

several thousand feet, and around a corner. Id. at 484a, 489a-90a.
12

In an order dated October 23, 2019, the trial court reversed the Board’s 

decision to not renew the License. The trial court found Clore’s testimony before 

the trial court to be credible and consistent with his testimony before the hearing 

examiner; the additional witnesses who testified on January 24-25, 2019,

Commissioner Blair, Huynh, and Simpson, were also deemed credible. Trial Ct. 

Finding of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 32-33. 

With regard to the February 7, 2016 arrest of Clore by Officer Turner, the trial 

court noted that docket entries of the incident reflected that all charges against Clore 

were dismissed. Trial Ct. op. at 34. The trial court concluded that no causal 

connection existed between Licensee and the February 20, 2016 incident involving 

a person urinating outside the Premises, as the record failed to demonstrate that the 

individual was a patron of the Premises. Id. at 35. 

The trial court acknowledged that an altercation took place inside the Premises 

on May 1, 2016, the same night as the homicide at Fifth Street and City Hall Place, 

approximately a block and a half from the Premises. Trial Ct. op. at 35. Licensee’s 

security personnel assisted the police to stop the fighting and disperse the patrons 

inside the Premises, and Clore fully cooperated with the CCPD in providing access 

to its video surveillance footage. Id. The trial court concluded that the record failed 

to demonstrate that weapons or illegal drugs were found on the Premises the night 

of the fight and used in commission of the homicide. Id.

The July 16, 2016 incident involved a report of shots fired. Id. Licensee’s 

security personnel notified Officer Ross, the CCPD officer responding to the 

incident, that a fight had taken place inside the Premises and the patrons involved 

were ejected. Id. at 35-36. The CCPD found shell casings approximately 30 yards 

from the Premises. Id. at 36. The trial court concluded that, as with the May 1, 2016 
13

incident, nothing in the record suggested that any guns, illegal drugs, or other 

weapons were found on the Premises and used in the shooting that took place at a 

separate location. Id.

The trial court noted that the August 13, 2017 incident involved a fight inside 

the Premises. Id. Captain Lee, the officer responding to the report, observed patrons 

arguing outside the Premises but she did not witness any fighting. Id. Licensee’s 

security personnel assisted the police in removing patrons from the Premises. Id. 

While outside the Premises, Captain Lee heard shots fired approximately 40 to 50 

meters away. Id. Three of the shooting victims had been patrons of the Premises, 

one of whom was armed. Id. Captain Lee did not know, however, if any of the 

weapons used were in the Premises prior to the shooting incident. Id. She could not 

identify the shooter and bullets recovered from the crime scene were not fired by the 

injured patron. Id. at 36-37. The trial court again found that the evidence did not 

establish a causal connection between the shooting and the Premises. Id. at 37.

Based on the above analysis, the trial court found that the incidents of 

disturbance cited by the Board were not connected with, or attributable to,

Licensee’s business, and as such, were insufficient to justify non-renewal of the 

License. F.F. No. 40. 

The trial court recognized that neither Licensee nor its employees had the 

authority to control the flow of traffic on the public streets surrounding the Premises. 

Id. at 37. Despite this, Licensee’s security personnel made perimeter checks up and 

down the block outside the Premises. Id. Commissioner Blair credibly testified that 

he met with Clore from 2015-2018 to discuss security measures for the Premises and 

Licensee’s security cooperated with the CCPD “99.9%” of the time. Id. at 38. The 

trial court acknowledged that criminal activity occurs in the area in which the 
14

Premises is located; however, Licensee has made a “zealous effort” to keep its 

patrons and the public safe. Id. The trial court opined that, other than close its 

business, Licensee “has done what it can to accomplish this goal.” Id. at 38-39. 

Accordingly, the trial court concluded, the evidence supported a conclusion that 

Licensee took substantial steps to prevent criminal activity on the Premises. 

Regarding the CLA, the trial court determined that non-renewal of the License 

was not warranted where the evidence demonstrated that Licensee substantially 

complied with its terms and conditions and any violations thereof were de minimis. 

Lastly, the trial court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding 

that Huynh was not reputable, as she credibly testified that she had not been arrested 

or charged with any criminal offense and her husband was no longer an officer of 

Licensee. The trial court incorporated its prior analysis of the alleged incidents of 

disturbance to the extent they related to the Board’s finding that Huynh was not 

reputable. This appeal followed.8

II. Issues

On appeal, the Board argues that the trial court erred in finding that the 

incidents of disturbance were not connected to Licensee’s business; in determining 

that Licensee took timely and remedial measures to prevent unlawful activity on the 

Premises; and in concluding that Licensee’s failure to comply with the CLA was de 

minimis and did not warrant a non-renewal of its license.

8 This Court’s scope of review in a liquor license renewal case is limited to a determination 

of whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the 

trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. I.B.P.O.E. of W. Mt. Vernon Lodge 

v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 969 A.2d 642, 647 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Substantial evidence is 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 

Rosing, Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 690 A.2d 758, 760 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), overruled on other 

grounds, Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. Richard E. Craft Am. Legion Home Corp., 718 A.2d 276, 278 

(Pa. 1998).
15

III. Analysis

A. Incidents of Disturbance

First, we review whether the trial court erred when it found that the incidents

of disturbance cited by the Board were not chargeable, connected, attributable, or 

tied to Licensee’s business, and that they were insufficient to justify non-renewal of 

the License.

The renewal of a liquor license is discretionary. S & B Rest., Inc. v. Pa. Liquor 

Control Bd., 114 A.3d 1106, 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). Section 470(a.1)(4) of the 

Code relevantly provides that the Board may refuse to renew a license:

(4) due to the manner in which this or another licensed 

premises was operated while the licensee, its shareholders, 

directors, officers, association members, servants, agents 

or employes were involved with that license. When 

considering the manner in which this or another licensed 

premises was being operated, the board may consider 

activity that occurred on or about the licensed premises or 

in areas under the licensee’s control if the activity occurred 

when the premises was open for operation and if there was 

a relationship between the activity outside the premises 

and the manner in which the licensed premises was 

operated. The board may take into consideration whether

any substantial steps were taken to address the activity 

occurring on or about the premises.

47 P.S. § 4-470(a.1)(4).

When an appeal is taken from a decision of the Board, the trial court hears the 

matter de novo. Section 464 of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-464. The trial court may make 

its own findings, and reach its own conclusions based upon those findings, even 

when the evidence it hears is substantially the same as the evidence presented to the 

Board. Two Sophia’s, Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 799 A.2d 917, 919 (Pa. 
16

Cmwlth. 2002). The trial court is free to substitute its discretion for that of the Board 

and it may modify, sustain, or reverse a Board decision to deny the license renewal, 

even if there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings. Goodfellas, 

Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 921 A.2d 559, 566 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Two 

Sophia’s, Inc., 799 A.2d at 921. 

Licensees are held strictly liable for violations of the Code that occur on the 

licensed premises. Pa. Liquor Control Bd. v. TLK, Inc., 544 A.2d 931, 933 (Pa. 

1988). Licensees are also held accountable for activity occurring off-premises where 

there is a causal connection between the licensed premises and the activity. St. 

Nicholas Greek Cath. Russian Aid Soc’y v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 41 A.3d 953, 

958 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Criminal activity will support a license revocation where 

the activity can be attributed to the manner by which the licensed premises is 

operated. Allison v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 131 A.3d 1075, 1080 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2016). The Board may refuse to renew a license where the licensee (1) knows, or 

should have known, of ongoing criminal activity, and (2) failed to take “substantial 

affirmative steps to prevent such activity.” TLK, Inc., 544 A.2d at 933. 

A licensee is not required to “do everything possible to prevent criminal 

activity on the premises, act as [its] own police force, or close [its] business.” 

Rosing, 690 A.2d at 762-63. It is only required to take “substantial affirmative 

measures to prevent the misconduct.” Id. at 763. Such steps must be taken, however, 

at a time when the licensed establishment knows or should know that illicit activity 

is taking place on the premises. I.B.P.O.E., 969 A.2d at 650. 

The Board maintains that the incidents which occurred on May 1, 2016, July 

16, 2016, and August 13, 2017, are causally linked to the operation of Licensee’s 
17

business and are sufficient grounds to deny Licensee’s renewal application,9 and the 

trial court misapplied the relevant case law when it concluded otherwise. The Board 

argues that the trial court failed to afford the proper legal significance to these 

incidents, which indisputably began on the Premises and required the intervention 

of law enforcement. The uncontested evidence established that all three shootings 

involved Licensee’s patrons and occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Premises 

at a time when no other businesses were open. The Board contends that, even if the 

shootings that occurred off-premises are discounted, the fights inside the Premises

that took place beforehand required the intervention of law enforcement. In support 

of its challenge to the trial court’s conclusions, the Board cites this Court’s decisions

in St. Nicholas and I.B.P.O.E. 

In St. Nicholas, this Court affirmed a trial court’s decision to affirm the 

Board’s denial of a licensee’s renewal application. The Board’s denial was based in 

part on several incidents of misconduct, including an assault with a weapon, several 

fights, one involving an attack on a police officer, and a stabbing, all of which 

occurred on the licensed premises. This Court rejected the licensee’s argument that 

the incidents were not causally related to the manner in which the premises was 

operated, as they took place in an area under the licensee’s control, during or shortly 

after the licensee’s hours of operation, and involved licensee’s customers who had 

been drinking inside the licensed premises. 

The incidents which led to the Board’s non-renewal of the license in I.B.P.O.E

included an assault inside the licensed premises, an argument initiated inside the 

premises which escalated and led to a shooting directly outside, and an episode in 

9 The Board has not challenged the trial court’s dismissal of the February 7, 2016 and 

February 20, 2016 incidents as unrelated to Licensee’s operation of the Premises, or questioned 

the trial court’s conclusions with regard to the reputations of Huynh and Ngo.
18

which a patron pointed a gun at the licensee’s bartender. The trial court reversed the 

Board’s non-renewal of the license after considering remedial measures taken by the 

licensee. This Court reversed after our review of the record failed to reveal what 

affirmative measures were employed. 

While our decisions in St. Nicholas and I.B.P.O.E. are certainly instructive, 

the facts are somewhat distinguishable, as the shootings involved in the present 

matter took place in areas that were not within Licensee’s control. The May 1, 2016 

homicide, for example, was not captured by Licensee’s video surveillance 

equipment. Rather, that evidence came from the security cameras installed at a 

barbershop located on another street approximately one block away from the 

Premises. Furthermore, the time stamps on the relevant video surveillance footage 

indicates that the perpetrators of the May 1, 2016 homicide left the Premises a few 

minutes before the fight broke out. 

While Captain Lee testified to a video which purported to show one of 

Licensee’s patrons armed with a gun while inside the Premises on August 13, 2017, 

Captain Lee could not identify the patron, and the Board presented no evidence that 

weapons were found on the Premises and used in the August 13, 2017 shooting that 

took place 40 to 50 yards to the south. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest 

that the July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017 shootings were committed by any of 

Licensee’s patrons. 

This conclusion does not end our analysis, however, as the Board’s decision 

to deny Licensee’s renewal application was in part predicated on the violent 

incidents that occurred inside the Premises, despite the presence of security 

personnel. Conspicuously absent from the trial court’s discussion is any 

consideration of whether the verbal and physical altercations taking place inside the 
19

Premises, and which precipitated the off-premises shootings, were sufficient to 

justify non-renewal of the License. 

In White House Cafe, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Pa. 

Cmwlth., No. 850 C.D. 2011, filed April 23, 2012), 2012 WL 8681520, an 

unreported opinion of this Court,10 we affirmed the denial of a liquor license renewal 

application based on homicides that took place adjacent to the licensed premises in 

2006 and 2007. We agreed with the trial court’s decision to not renew the license, 

as the licensee was on notice that the premises attracted patrons who resolved their 

disputes with weapons. Slip op. at 7. The 2007 homicide was precipitated by a 

“brawl” that took place inside the premises. Evidence of the homicide’s proximity 

to the premises, its occurrence soon after the feuding patrons were ejected from the 

bar, and the “inadequate efforts to separate the feuding patrons,” supported a finding 

that the homicide was connected to the licensee’s operation of the premises. Id. at 

7. We agreed with the Board that the licensee could not simply “put its problems 

out on the street” by ejecting its patrons after a fight and then “wash its hands of 

those problems.” Id.

We further noted the licensed premises’ location within a high-crime area. Id. 

at 8. The licensee knew that her mailman wore a bullet-proof vest and she took 

several steps to increase security after a 2005 assault which occurred inside the 

licensed premises. Id. Accordingly, as the licensee was aware of ongoing criminal 

activity, the burden shifted to her to show she made substantial and affirmative steps 

to guard against a known pattern of illegal activity. Id. Although the licensee took 

efforts to improve security on the premises, they did not deter the 2006 and 2007 

10 This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited for their persuasive value. 

Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating Procedures. 210 Pa. Code § 

69.414(a).
20

homicides. Id. at 9. In light of the magnitude of the risk, “the repetition of death 

and serious bodily injury,” we agreed with the trial court that the licensee’s efforts 

were not substantial enough to “deter further bloodshed.” Id. 

In the instant matter, while the perpetrators of the off-premises shootings on 

July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017, cannot be tied to Licensee’s patrons, the same 

cannot be said of the May 1, 2016 homicide. The victim, Moore, was a patron 

involved in one of the altercations that took place inside the Premises, and the 

perpetrators (known gang members) were also Licensee’s patrons. 

Detective Heness described the May 1, 2016 incident as a “complete melee,” 

which consisted of multiple fights involving patrons who physically assaulted each 

other with their fists and with chairs. R.R. at 145a. This incident necessitated a 

county-wide police response involving 15 law enforcement agencies. Captain Lee 

testified that it was “[n]ot at all unusual” for the CCPD to respond to calls from the 

Premises at closing time. Id. at 33a. Police response by the CCPD was also required 

for the July 16, 2016 and August 13, 2017 fights. Clore acknowledged that he 

contacted law enforcement when fights broke out in the hopes that Licensee’s 

patrons would “act accordingly” after being ejected from the Premises. Id. at 170a. 

Such a policy demonstrates Licensee’s inability to prevent criminal activity on the 

Premises without the intervention of law enforcement. Indeed, it suggests that 

Licensee, rather than take affirmative steps to prevent violence from erupting inside 

the Premises, relies on the CCPD to contain it after the fact. Like the proprietor in 

White House Café, Licensee cannot simply wash its hands of the patrons it ejects 

once they leave the Premises and rely on the CCPD to remedy any situation that 

follows.
21

There is no dispute that the May 1, 2016, July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017 

altercations involved Licensee’s customers, they took place in an area under 

Licensee’s control, and they occurred during Licensee’s hours of operation. In that 

regard, the trial court’s dismissal of the altercations as unrelated to Licensee’s 

business is simply not sustainable. Accordingly, we agree with the Board that the 

trial court erred in finding that the May 1, 2016, July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017 

altercations were not connected to Licensee’s operation of the Premises.

B. Remedial Measures

Next, we address the Board’s argument that the trial court erred in concluding 

that Licensee implemented timely and substantial remedial measures in response to 

the incidents of violence occurring on the Premises.

The Board argues that the trial court, in concluding that Licensee “took 

substantial remedial measures to resolve incidents of misconduct in violation of the 

[Code] and to protect its patrons and the public,” improperly considered security 

measures employed on the Premises, which were put in place at the time the 

Premises opened and existed long before the May 1, 2016, July 16, 2016, and August 

13, 2017 incidents. Trial Ct. op. at 37. The Board maintains that the evidence 

instead demonstrates that Licensee took no action whatsoever in response to those

incidents. 

For non-Code related violations of law, including the Crimes Code,11 the 

Board may refuse to renew a license where the licensee (1) knows or should have 

known of ongoing criminal activity and (2) failed to take substantial affirmative 

steps to prevent such activities. TLK, Inc., 544 A.2d at 933. A licensee may defend 

its license by demonstrating that it took substantial affirmative steps to guard against 

11 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 101 – 9546.
22

a known pattern of illegal activities. Id. Remedial measures must be taken when 

the licensed establishment knows, or should know, that illicit activity is taking place 

on the premises. I.B.P.O.E., 969 A.2d at 650.

The Board is correct that the security measures Licensee employed, including 

the use of metal detectors, video surveillance, and security patrols, all existed prior 

to the incidents at issue. While Clore met with Commissioner Blair to discuss the 

safe operation of the Premises, these meetings were required by the terms of the 

CLA and demonstrated Licensee’s compliance therewith, nothing more. 

Commissioner Blair testified that he made recommendations to Clore during 

discussions that took place between 2015 and 2018; however, such 

recommendations related to the traffic flow of patrons entering the Premises and cars 

parked on the streets outside. There is no evidence to suggest these 

recommendations were intended to address and rectify the issues which led to the 

May 1, 2016, July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017 altercations. Licensee has not 

argued it was unaware of the fights taking place on the Premises (nor could it). There 

is no evidence demonstrating that Licensee took any action whatsoever following 

the May 1, 2016 melee, or the fights that took place in the months and year afterward. 

Based on our review of the record, we simply cannot agree that Licensee 

implemented substantial affirmative steps to guard against a known pattern of illegal 

activities. TLK, Inc., 544 A.2d at 933. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial 

court’s determination that Licensee took substantial steps to prevent criminal activity 

on the Premises is not supported by substantial evidence. 
23

C. Violation of the CLA

Finally, we address whether the trial court erred in concluding that Licensee’s 

violation of the CLA was de minimis and did not warrant the Board’s non-renewal 

of the license. 

Section 470(a) of the Code provides that:

[t]he [B]oard may enter into an agreement with the 

applicant concerning additional restrictions on the license 

in question. If the [B]oard and the applicant enter into such 

an agreement, such agreement shall be binding on the 

applicant. Failure by the applicant to adhere to the 

agreement will be sufficient cause to form the basis for a 

citation under section 471 and for the nonrenewal of the 

license under this section.

47 P.S. § 4-470(a) (emphasis added). It is clear, therefore, that a licensee’s breach 

of its CLA may establish a basis for non-renewal of a license. See Hotel Liquor 

License #H-2892 v. Tabs Entm’t, Inc., 125 A.3d 487, 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) 

(licensee’s failure to comply with requirements of a CLA sufficient cause for nonrenewal of license).

The trial court concluded that Licensee “substantially complied” with the 

terms and conditions of the CLA based on a logbook introduced at the January 24, 

2019 trial court hearing, which documented security patrols performed at the 

Premises after April 27, 2018. Trial Ct. op. at 40. The trial court was also persuaded 

by the security measures implemented on the Premises. Id. 

The Board notes that Licensee presented no evidence demonstrating it kept 

records of meetings held with the CCPD or security patrols made prior to April 27, 

2018. Licensee failed to produce any records whatsoever from the period of July 

11, 2012, through February 27, 2018, the date of the Bureau’s second records 
24

request. The Board maintains that Licensee’s failure to document the security 

patrols and meetings with the CCPD is a material breach of the July 11, 2012 CLA, 

as the CLA’s record-keeping requirements are necessary to ensure compliance with 

its substantive provisions. The Board argues that such non-compliance evidences a 

careless disregard of Licensee’s obligations.

As to that failure, we agree with the Board that Licensee’s failure to comply 

with the terms of the CLA relating to record retention constitutes a material breach 

thereof. Clore admitted that he was aware of the terms of the CLA. While Clore 

testified that “there has always been a logbook,” R.R. at 411a, he provided no 

specifics as to what those logbooks contained and Licensee presented no physical 

evidence to show that it documented security patrols occurring prior to the April 27, 

2018 administrative hearing. Licensee’s compliance with the record retention

provision of the CLA after April 27, 2018, as evidenced by the logbook introduced 

at the January 24, 2019 trial court hearing, does not excuse its previous six-year 

period of apparent non-compliance.

The relevant provisions of the CLA requires that Licensee must not only 

document its security patrols and meetings with the CCPD, it must also maintain the 

records for a period of at least two years. Licensee indisputably failed to produce 

the records when requested by the Bureau and it made no attempt to explain why the 

records were not provided. Furthermore, Licensee provided no testimony or 

documentary evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that it ever maintained records 

relating to monthly meetings held with members of the CCPD. Dismissing 

Licensee’s failure to comply at any time with one of the CLA’s terms as a de minimis 

breach would effectively render it a nullity. We decline to do so and the trial court 

erred in concluding otherwise. 
25

IV. Conclusion

The record demonstrates that the verbal and physical altercations which 

precipitated the May 1, 2016, July 16, 2016, and August 13, 2017 off-premises 

shootings are connected to Licensee’s operation of the Premises. As the record is 

devoid of any facts to support a conclusion that Licensee took remedial steps to 

prevent future criminal activity, the trial court erred in reversing the Board’s decision 

to not renew the License. The trial court further erred in concluding that Licensee’s 

breach of the CLA’s terms was de minimis. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Gold Room, Inc. :

:

v. : No. 1656 C.D. 2019

:

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2020, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County dated October 23, 2019, is hereby REVERSED.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge