[Download] "Matter Mack Conroy v. Thomas Duffy" by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Mack Conroy v. Thomas Duffy
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 27, 1989
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
DECISION & JUDGMENT On February 13, 1986, March 5, 1986, and March 20, 1986, an undercover police officer purchased what
was believed to be cocaine at the premises known as the Gallery Lounge located in Staten Island which was operted by the petitioner
licensee. Each time it was purchased from a patron while the barmaid, with whom the patron purportedly had some sort of relationship,
was tending the bar. On each occasion, none of the principals of the licensee corporation was present. Based upon these incidents
the respondents determined that the petitioner suffered or permitted its premises to become disorderly in violation of Alcoholic
Beverage Control Law Γ§ 106(6). The respondents' determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, 300
Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). It is well established that absent evidence that a licensee or someone vested with managerial or supervisory authority whose
knowledge could be imputed to the licensee knew or should have known of the improper activity, a finding that the licensee
suffered or permitted the improper conduct may not be sustained (see, Matter of Richjen Rest. v State Liq. Auth., 51 N.Y.2d
847; Matter of JVC Tavern Corp. v State Liq. Auth., 123 A.D.2d 764, affd 70 N.Y.2d 805). Although it is evident that the barmaid
who was present did not hold a position that would result in her knowledge being imputed to the petitioner (see, Matter of
Richjen Rest. supra, at 849-850), the petitioner may be charged with the knowledge it would have obtained through the exercise
of reasonable diligence in supervising the licensed premises (see, People ex rel. Price v Sheffield Farms-Slawson-Decker Co.,
225 NY 25, 30; Matter of Cuti v Roth, 50 A.D.2d 1044, 1045). Arthur Conroy, one of two principals of the petitioner, candidly
admitted that David Mack, the second principal of the petitioner, who was supposed to be present at the bar on the nights
in a question to supervise its operations, was not in fact present and did not take measures to have someone take his place.
A licensee cannot avoid the consequences of violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law Γ§ 106(6) merely by failing to provide
supervision at its premises (see, Matter of Cuti v Roth, supra, at 1045).