Case Name: PURE FRESH ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Ponderosa Pub, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO OF the STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-07-17
Citations: 510 So. 2d 1020
Docket Number: No. 87-0826
Parties: PURE FRESH ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Ponderosa Pub, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO OF the STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 1020–1021

Head Matter:
PURE FRESH ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Ponderosa Pub, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO OF the STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 87-0826.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 17, 1987.
Harry Gulkin, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
W. Douglas Moody, Staff Atty., Department of Business Regulations, Tallahassee, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks review of an emergency order suspending an alcoholic beverage license. The order of suspension contains an account of drug sales and activities on the part of petitioner's employees, discovered through an undercover operation con ducted by agents of the division. No hearing has been held or sworn testimony taken.
The agency's emergency order of suspension, entered in compliance with sections 120.54, 120.59 and 120.60, Florida Statutes, contains extensive findings of fact, as well as the conclusion that there was an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare. It was accompanied by a notice to show cause and a notice advising petitioner of its rights with respect to hearings.
We find no violation of petitioner's right to a hearing and due process. The emergency order is affirmed and the petition is therefore denied. Cf. Gervais v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 438 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. State Department of Business Regulation, 395 So.2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
. We express no view on the merits of the order, which would be the subject of any final hearing.