Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Doherty's New Dorp Tavern v. New York State Liquor Authority
Citations: 82 A.D.2d 858; 440 N.Y.S.2d 268; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14544
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 15, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court
A proceeding was initiated under CPLR article 78 to review a determination made by the State Liquor Authority on October 6, 1980, which found the petitioner guilty of violating subdivision 6 of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. A penalty of a 30-day suspension and a $1,000 bond claim was imposed. The charge against the petitioner stemmed from an incident where a “bouncer” allegedly struck a patron. The petitioner presented evidence that the patron had initiated the altercation by swinging at the bouncer and highlighted the crowded environment, arguing that the person in charge was unaware of the incident until it had concluded. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the petitioner permitted the premises to become disorderly merely by ejecting an unruly patron, nor was the force used deemed unnecessary. Judge Gibbons dissented, arguing against the legitimacy of a “bouncer” using violence to administer justice in place of law enforcement. He noted that the patron sustained significant injuries, including a broken nose, and criticized the failure of the establishment's manager, who was present, to intervene or facilitate a nonviolent resolution. Gibbons referenced the bartender’s role in instigating the incident and emphasized that the lack of evidence showing the patron as unruly undermined the justification for the force used. He concluded that substantial evidence supported the Liquor Authority's decision, and the penalty imposed was appropriate. The final ruling granted the petition, annulled the Liquor Authority's determination, dismissed the charge, and awarded costs.