Case Name: In the Matter of Thomas See, Doing Business as Seecone Lounge, Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1975-02-28
Citations: 47 A.D.2d 672
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Thomas See, Doing Business as Seecone Lounge, Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 672–672

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Thomas See, Doing Business as Seecone Lounge, Petitioner, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Opinion:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent's determination dated November 7, 1974, which (1) revoked petitioner's special on-premises liquor license, (2) imposed a $1,000 bond claim and (3) proscribed the issuance of any liquor license for the premises in question for two years. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision therein that the license is revoked and substituting therefor a provision that the said license is canceled and (2) deleting therefrom the proscription against the issuance of a liquor license for a two-year period. As so modified, determination confirmed and petition otherwise dismissed, on the merits, without costs. We agree with the State Liquor Authority that petitioner violated subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by knowingly permitting a lewd and indecent performance by an entertainer in the licensed premises on the evening of August 28, 1974 and the early morning of August 29, 1974. However, since (1) the record indicates that petitioner had not, prior or subsequent thereto, been involved in any violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law or any rule or regulation of the State Liquor Authority, and (2) the members of the authority were closely divided in their vote concerning the two-year proscription against the issuance of any liquor license for the premises, we hold that the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion and deem it appropriate to modify the penalty to the extent above directed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.