Court Opinion

ID: 9703730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:06:10.039333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.471020
License: Public Domain

BURMAN, P. J., dissenting: Although I concur in affirming the revocation of Marco Legones’ local liquor license for premises located at 4804% North Sheridan Road, I must respectfully dissent from affirming the revocation of a similar liquor license held by the same licensee for premises located at 4721 North Clifton Avenue. The plaintiff, Marco Legones, urges that there is nothing in the Liquor Control Act (Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 43), which enables the Local Liquor Control Commissioner to revoke a local liquor license upon the basis that a similar license held by a licensee at a different location had been previously revoked. The record reveals that the order to revoke Legones’ license for the Sheridan Road premises was based on finding (1) that a patron was assaulted by an employee of the licensee; (2) that alcoholic liquor was sold on the premises to a person under 21 years of age; and (3) alcoholic beverages were sold to an intoxicated person on the premises. However, the record also reveals that neither Legones, the licensee, nor any of his Clifton Avenue premises employees were present when any of these violations occurred. If the licensee had personally committed any act in violation of the Liquor Control Act at either of his premises there would be some basis for finding that he was not a person to hold a liquor license and there would be “cause” for the revocation of any similar license held by the licensee. Assuming arguendo that the licensee had fifty stores and many employees it would be harsh punishment indeed to revoke all of his licenses because of the acts of one of his employees at one establishment at a time when he was not directly or indirectly involved. I do not think the punishment is any less harsh when the licensee has two premises and loses both licenses for misconduct in one. It is sufficient that one of his licenses was revoked because of the misconduct of an employee when he was not present.