Ahmad Suleiman d/b/a Barksdale Market v. City Of Memphis Alcohol Commission

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2007-01806-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; July 24, 2008; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the denial of a beer permit application by Ahmad Suleiman for the Barksdale Market, a convenience store in the Cooper-Young neighborhood. The City of Memphis Alcohol Commission initially denied the application, citing concerns that beer sales would interfere with public health, safety, and morals, as outlined in section 7-8-11 of the Memphis Code of Ordinances. Suleiman appealed the decision through a writ of certiorari, arguing that the previous owners had sold beer without issue and that he had made significant improvements to the market.

During the trial de novo, evidence was presented, including Suleiman's testimony about renovations and the presence of similar establishments nearby. However, the court noted that the market is located in a residential area, with only one other commercial establishment nearby. Testimony regarding projected beer sales was inconsistent, with Suleiman estimating they could contribute between 20% to 60% of his gross revenue. Residents expressed concerns about increased foot traffic and related disturbances.

Ultimately, the trial court reversed the Alcohol Commission’s decision, ordering the issuance of the beer license. However, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence did not support the trial court's ruling, leading to a reversal and remand of the case.

A resident from Cooper-Young testified about the negative impacts of alcohol sales at a local market, noting a significant increase in foot traffic and litter when beer sales were occurring. She reported witnessing criminal activity linked to the market, including recent robberies and a shooting involving the former owner. Another resident corroborated these issues, emphasizing a troubling rise in shootings at the location, including two serious incidents in 2006. This resident observed that many individuals from outside the neighborhood frequented the establishment to purchase alcohol, contributing to safety concerns. 

Testimony revealed that since the cessation of beer sales, foot traffic in the neighborhood had noticeably decreased. A resident who conducted a survey of over 200 locals found widespread opposition to granting a new alcohol permit. The Commission raised concerns about Mr. Suleiman's business practices, particularly an incident where a resident purchased beer from the market just days after the permit was denied. Mr. Suleiman claimed ignorance of this sale, although he acknowledged that beer remained in the cooler under a 'Not for Sale' sign. The Commission also noted Mr. Suleiman's history of violations at another store he owns in Memphis and questioned his honesty during the proceedings.

Mr. Suleiman initially denied having prior violations or appearances before the Alcohol Commission. However, it was later revealed that he had appeared before the Commission at least three times for selling beer to minors, with four total violations linked to another store. He contended that he misunderstood the Commission's inquiry as relating to his personal history rather than his business conduct, asserting that he had terminated employees involved in the infractions. The latest violation occurred in 2000, resulting in a $1,000 fine, which Mr. Suleiman claimed was due to entrapment.

On July 17, 2007, the trial court overturned the Commission's denial of Mr. Suleiman's beer license application, stating that the Commission's basis for denial—concerns regarding public health, safety, or morals—was unsupported by the record. The court noted that beer had been sold at Mr. Suleiman's store previously and that other nearby businesses also sold beer. The court referenced a previous case, Al-Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Commission, where permit denial had been reversed under worse circumstances.

The Alcohol Commission appealed this decision, citing Mr. Suleiman's history of selling beer to minors, his dishonesty about it, and recent illegal sales at his Barksdale Market as reasons for continued denial of the permit. The appeal focuses on whether the trial court's judgment, which favored Mr. Suleiman, was against the preponderance of evidence regarding potential interference with public health, safety, or morals. Tennessee law allows for a trial de novo in such cases, granting the trial court the authority to review the agency's findings independently, which it did in this instance, ultimately finding no evidence to support the Commission's concerns.

A trial court's judgment on a beer permit issuance is presumed correct and can only be overturned if the evidence preponderates against it. The court examined whether evidence contradicted the trial court's conclusion that granting Mr. Suleiman a permit would not harm public health, safety, and morals. The analysis referenced Al-Koshshi v. Memphis Alcohol Commission, where a permit was denied due to proximity to schools and a history of loitering and prostitution, but the court found no causal link between these issues and beer sales. The store manager’s testimony indicated proactive measures to maintain cleanliness and safety, alongside plans for significant improvements.

In contrast, the current case regarding the Barksdale Market involves specific community grievances linked to beer sales, such as littering by customers, which were substantiated by testimonies from local residents. Unlike generalized fears in previous cases, this evidence directly connected beer sales at the Barksdale Market to littering on private property. The court emphasized that without factual evidence demonstrating how a permit would disrupt community welfare, general objections are insufficient for denial. Consequently, the testimonies regarding litter from the Barksdale Market established a more compelling case for opposing the permit than those in prior rulings.

The relevance of prior crime incidents at the Barksdale Market is acknowledged, though not determinative in the analysis. Cooper-Young residents raised concerns about crime associated with the market, specifically noting that shootings and armed robberies occurred on the premises. Unlike the precedent established in Green, where past crime was deemed immaterial due to lack of connection to the establishment, the current case evidences a direct link between beer sales at Barksdale Market and an increase in foot traffic, litter, and unlawful activities.

While Mr. Suleiman, the current operator, was not involved in prior misconduct, evidence suggests he failed to adequately ensure compliance with laws governing alcohol sales. After the Commission denied his beer permit, he did not take measures to remove beer from the premises to prevent further legal issues, indicating negligence. His conflicting testimony regarding past violations appeared disingenuous, leading to a conclusion that his business practices adversely affect community welfare.

In contrast to the Al-Koshshi case, where no connection was found between the establishment and illegal activities, the Barksdale Market’s location among residential areas and a church, coupled with evidence of beer sales contributing to litter and crime, justifies a different outcome. Mr. Suleiman’s lack of proactive measures contrasts sharply with the manager in Al-Koshshi. Therefore, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, with costs of the appeal assessed against Mr. Suleiman.