| Matter of Surf City Enters. of Syracuse, Inc. v New York State Liq.Auth. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04556 [96 AD3d 1458] |
| June 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Surf City Enterprises of Syracuse, Inc.,Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Mark D. Frering, New York State Liquor Authority, Albany, for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, OnondagaCounty [Brian F. DeJoseph, J.], entered January 11, 2012) to review a determination ofrespondent. The determination imposed a civil penalty against petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and thepetition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul thedetermination that it violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) (selling alcohol tominors), 9 NYCRR 48.2 (conduct of licensed premises) and 9 NYCRR 48.3 (conformance withlocal and other regulations). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, we conclude that thedetermination that it violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and 9 NYCRR48.2 is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Shorts Bar of Rochester Inc. v New York State Liq.Auth., 17 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2005]). Several law enforcement officers who participatedin the raid of petitioner's establishment testified at the hearing that they observed numerousunderage patrons consuming alcohol, and the record includes several supporting depositions ofunderage patrons who admitted consuming alcohol on the premises (see Matter of JMH, Inc. v New York StateLiq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1260, 1262 [2009]). We do not address petitioner's contention thatthe admissions were obtained in violation of the patrons' constitutional rights inasmuch aspetitioner lacks standing to raise that contention (cf. People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 355[1989]; see generally Warth v Seldin, 422 US 490, 498-500 [1975]; Tileston vUllman, 318 US 44, 46 [1943]).
We further conclude that the determination that petitioner violated 9 NYCRR 48.3 byemploying unlicensed security guards in violation of state regulations is supported by substantialevidence (see generally Shorts Bar of Rochester, 17 AD3d at 1102). Petitioner'scontention with respect to that charge concerns the resolution of conflicting testimony, and it iswell established that the findings of an Administrative Law Judge that turn on the credibility ofwitnesses are entitled to great weight (see Matter of Grossberg v Christian, 245 AD2d118 [1997]; see also Matter ofCafÉ La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280, 281 [2007]).We see no basis to [*2]disturb those findings.Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.