Case Name: VILLAGE ZOO, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-01-09
Citations: 462 So. 2d 839
Docket Number: No. 84-760
Parties: VILLAGE ZOO, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 462
Pages: 839–839

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.