The Issue By notice to show cause, petitioner charged that respondent, individually or through the acts of its agent/employee, violated the provisions of Section 562.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by selling an alcoholic beverage on its licensed premises to a person under the age of 21. Respondent requested a formal hearing on the charges, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing, petitioner called three witnesses and offered three exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered no exhibits. A transcript of the hearing was not ordered, and the parties were granted leave until August 21, 1989 to file proposed findings of fact. Petitioner timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A ruling on each of petitioner's proposed findings of fact has been made and is reflected in the Appendix to this recommended order. On August 24, 1989, respondent filed a letter which is here deemed to be his proposed findings of fact; however, his filing was untimely.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Toms Texaco, held an alcoholic beverage license number 60-04813, series 2- APS for the premises known as Toms Texaco in Lantana, Florida at 401 N. Dixie Highway. Mr. Thomas Przybylski is the President of respondent and appeared on behalf of the licensee. On or around April 4, 1989, petitioner's investigator conducted an investigation of respondent's licensed premises to determine if respondent was selling alcoholic beverages to underaged persons. The investigation was prompted by complaints received by petitioner from the Lantana Police Department. Petitioner's practice in making such investigations was to employ an underaged person and send the underaged person onto the licensed premises to purchase an alcoholic beverage. The underaged person was instructed not to carry any form of identification and to respond truthfully if asked his age or for identification. Julio A. More was employed by petitioner as an Investigative Aide. On April 4, 1989, following petitioner's instructions, Mr. More, who was eighteen at the time and appeared to be no older than his age, entered the licensed premises at issue. It was a busy afternoon at Toms Texaco. Mr. More picked a beer out of the inventory and attempted to purchase it from Mr. Przybylski, who was working that afternoon. Mr. Przybylski asked Mr. More if he had any identification to which Mr. More replied that he had none. Mr. Przybylski then sold Mr. More the beer. Petitioner's investigator witnessed the sale and confiscated the tendered beer. Mr. Przybylski as an employee and officer of respondent sold an alcoholic beverage to an individual who was eighteen at the time of the sale. Accordingly, respondent is guilty of selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age. The proof demonstrated that petitioner has promulgated disciplinary guidelines for offenses similar to the one at issue; and that the appropriate penalty in this case would be the imposition of a fine of $1,000 and twenty-day suspension of the license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing on respondent an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspending respondent's license for a period of twenty days. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of September 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO.89-3006 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. Irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas John Przybylski, Jr. Coast Line Petroleum, Inc. 10670 Cypress Bend Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33498 Lt. Debbie Pfitzenmaier Elisha Newton Dimick Building 111 Georgia Avenue, Room 207 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Leonard Ivey Director The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administration action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Kamel Supermarket, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 23-01444, series 2 APS, for the business known as Kamel Supermarket (the "premises"), located at 3601 Grand Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Jamal E. Rahma was the sole stockholder and officer of Respondent. In May 1995, U.S.D.A. Special Agent John Karlovitch, now a Deputy U.S. Marshall, began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information received which indicated that persons associated with Kamel Supermarket were purchasing U.S.D.A. Food Coupons for cash and at less than their face value. On May 17, 1995, Special Agent Karlovitch gave Bernadette Hargrett, an Investigative Operative operating undercover, four U.S.D.A. Food Coupon Books having an aggregate face value of $200, for the purpose of attempting to sell such books to employees of the licensed premises. Ms. Hargrett entered the licensed premises and met with an unknown male, who appeared to be an employee, and sold him the four coupon books for $150 in cash. On May 31, 1995, Special Agent Karlovitch gave Ms. Hargrett U.S.D.A. Food Coupons having an aggregate face value of $400, for the purpose of attempting to sell such coupons to employees of the licensed premises. Ms. Hargrett entered the licensed premises and met with a different male than on the first occasion, who also appeared to be an employee, and sold him the food coupons for $300 in cash. On August 9, 1995, Special Agent Karlovitch gave Ms. Hargrett U.S.D.A. Food Coupons having an aggregate face value of $800, for the purpose of attempting to sell such coupons to employees of the licensed premises. Ms. Hargrett entered the licensed premises, met with the same unidentified male as on May 31, 1995, and sold him the food coupons for $600 in cash. On September 7, 1995, Special Agent Karlovitch gave Ms. Hargrett U.S.D.A. Food Coupons having an aggregate face value of $1,000, for the purpose of attempting to sell such coupons to employees of the licensed premises. Ms. Hargrett entered the licensed premises, met with Jamal E. Rahma, and, following some discussion, sold him the food coupons for $750 in cash. Pertinent to Mr. Rahma's knowledge of the impropriety of his conduct, it is observed that before he would purchase the coupons, Mr. Rahma took Ms. Hargrett outside the store and into his car to discuss the transaction. Also, pertinent to Mr. Rahma's knowledge of the impropriety of his conduct, as well as the appropriate penalty, the proof demonstrated that while Kamel Supermarket was at one time authorized to accept food coupons, its authorization was revoked in 1993 for similar misconduct, and that Kamel has previously been the subject of two previous disciplinary actions by Petitioner for similar misconduct. Those actions, one in 1993 and one in 1994, were resolved by consent order and the payment of a civil penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jamal Rahma c/o Kamel Supermarket 3601 Grand Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Major Jorge Herrera Augusta Building, Suite 100 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33166 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent, Club Manhattan Bar and Grill, LLC, d/b/a Club Manhattan Bar and Grill (Respondent), committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaints dated September 13, 2010, and December 1, 2010, and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating persons holding alcoholic beverage licenses. § 561.02, Fla. Stat. Respondent is licensed under the Florida beverage law by the Department. Respondent holds a 4COP/SRX special restaurant license issued by the Department with Alcoholic Beverage License No. 68-04347. Ms. Stokes is the licensee of record for Respondent. Consequently, Respondent is subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent's series 4COP/SRX is a special restaurant license that permits it to sell beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on the licensed premises. Additionally, the licensee must satisfy seating and record-keeping requirements and must comply with 51 percent of its gross sales being food and non- alcoholic beverages. See § 561.20(2)(a)4., Fla. Stat. Respondent's restaurant is located in Sarasota County, Florida, and, pursuant to the 4COP/SRX license, must have seating and capability to serve 150 customers at any one time. On August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn conducted an inspection of Respondent's business premises. He conducted the inspection based on complaints made to the Department that Respondent was operating as an after-hours bar, rather than a restaurant. At this initial inspection, which occurred at 2:30 p.m. on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn found the restaurant did not have any customers or menus. Further, he noticed that the premises had seating for only 92 people and a large dance floor. Further, he observed that the walls had signs advertising drink specials and late-night parties. Special Agent Flynn met Ms. Stokes, Respondent's manager and holder of the license, and informed her that the beverage license required that Respondent be able to serve 150 customers at one time. Also, Special Agent Flynn requested the required business records concerning the purchase of alcoholic beverage invoices from the distributors for a 60-day proceeding period. Ms. Stokes did not have the requested records on the premises. On August 19, 2010, Special Agent Flynn sent Ms. Stokes a written request, requesting alcoholic purchase invoices for a 60-day period before August 19, 2010. The request allowed Ms. Stokes 14 days to compile the records and to provide the records to the Department. The record here showed by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not produce records for the audit period. On September 8, 2010, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Special Agent Flynn returned to Respondent's premises. Again, he found that Respondent did not have the required seating number and ability to serve 150 customers at one time. Special Agent Flynn offered credible testimony that, during the September 8, 2010, inspection, he found Respondent had only 106 available seats. Further, consistent with his inspection on August 5, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed facts showing that Respondent was a late-night bar, as opposed to a restaurant. The evidence showed that on September 8, 2010, Special Agent Flynn observed that Respondent did not have any customers, menus, and very little food in its small kitchen. Special Agent Flynn, however, did observe that Respondent continued to have its large dance floor, disc jockey booth, advertised drink specials, and posters advertising late-night parties. Clearly, Respondent was being operated as a bar, rather than a restaurant as required by its license. At the September 8, 2010, inspection, Special Agent Flynn again requested Respondent's business records that he had previously requested for the 60-day time period before August 19, 2010. Ms. Stokes provided a few invoices for purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. These invoices were dated after the August 19, 2010, date that Special Agent Flynn had requested and did not cover the requested 60 days prior to the August 19, 2010, request. These records included food and beverage purchases by Respondent from retailers, but did not contain any records concerning the points of sale at the restaurant. Ms. Nadeau, an auditor for the Department, offered credible testimony concerning the Department's request for business records from Respondent for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Nadeau set up an audit request for the period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, based on information provided by Special Agent Flynn. The Department provided Ms. Stokes with an audit engagement letter that requested business records. Ms. Nadeau testified that on September 10, 2010, she was contacted by Ms. Stokes. Ms. Stokes informed Ms. Nadeau that Ms. Stokes had become the owner of the restaurant in June 2010 and that she did not have the required records. Ms. Nadeau informed Ms. Stokes to provide all the records requested in the audit engagement letter that Ms. Stokes had and to try to obtain the prior records from the previous managing member of Respondent. On September 22, 2010, Ms. Stokes mailed to the Department records she claimed met the audit period. The records consisted of guest checks for July and August 2010, which only showed food purchases and no alcoholic beverage purchases. Further, Ms. Nadeau found that the records were not reliable, because the records contained numerous personal items not related to the restaurant, such as baby wipes, cotton swabs, and boxer shorts. Consequently, the record clearly and convincingly shows that Respondent failed to provide the required business records for the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010. Next, based on Respondent's failure to provide any reliable records, the Department was unable to conduct an audit of the business. Records provided by Respondent indicated that the only sales that occurred on the premises were for food. However, the testimony showed that Respondent's business included the sale of alcohol and marketed the sale of alcoholic beverages for late-night parties. Mr. Torres, the senior auditor for the Department, credibly testified that he conducted an independent review of Ms. Nadeau's initial audit findings. Mr. Torres, who has been employed with the Department for 27 years, reviewed the records provided by Respondent. He credibly testified that Respondent's guest checks were very questionable because they showed all food sales, but no alcohol, which was not consistent with Special Agent Flynn's observations. The evidence further showed that Ms. Stokes became the managing member of Respondent in June 2010. Ms. Stokes provided the Department with a change of corporate officers and named herself as registered agent, rather than apply for a new license. This distinction would later become important because, as explained by Ms. Nadeau, in the Department's eyes, there is a continuation of ownership. Under a continuation of ownership, Ms. Stokes was required to have business records for the time period before she became the managing member of Respondent. Ms. Stokes credibly testified that she did not have any records before June 20, 2010; thus, Respondent was unable to provide records for the audit period. Ms. Stokes candidly admitted that her restaurant had been struggling financially, which is why she had worked to catering special events to draw foot traffic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license and finding that Respondent violated: 1. Section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by failing to provide the required service area, seating, and equipment to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tables at one time as required by its license; 2. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), the audit period of April 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, by not providing the requested business records; and 3. Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a)1., within section 561.29(1)(a), on September 8, 2010, by not providing the requested business records. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 561.20(2)(a)4., within section 561.29(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Early Mitchell t/a Mitchell's Fish Market holds 1-COP beverage license which authorizes the sale of beer only for consumption on the premises. At the time scheduled for the commencement of the hearing Mitchell was not present and the hearing commenced. Exhibit 1 shows that the notice of the hearing was served upon Mitchell on May 10, 1977. Shortly thereafter Mitchell arrived and the hearing proceeded. On October 5, 1976 a beverage agent accompanied by an officer from the Tallahassee Police Department inspected Mitchell's Fish Market. Inside they found a partially filled bottle of Smirnoff vodka which was seized, duly marked, and presented in evidence at the hearing. A description of the bottle was substituted for the exhibit and Exhibit 2 was returned to the Beverage Division. On March 9, 1977 another beverage officer, on a routine inspection of Mitchell's Fish Market, discovered behind the counter concealed in an open beer case, one partially filled bottle of Smirnoff vodka. The bottle was seized, marked for identification and retained in the custody of the seizing beverage officer until such time as it was produced in evidence at the hearing. A description of the bottle was entered into the record and Exhibit 3 returned to the Division of Beverage.
The Issue Whether petitioners' application for approval of a change in corporate officers of an existing corporate licensee should be granted, or denied on the ground that a disqualified person--a convicted felon--is interested either directly or indirectly in the business.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 18, 1980, Richard Zabel and Anita Grizaffi ("applicants") negotiated for the purchase and sale of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., holders of beverage license No. 16-6859 SRX. On that date, Richard Zabel and Anita Grizaffi, his sister, entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the corporation called Cowboy's, Inc. The purchase price of said stock was to be $300,000. The closing for the purchase of the stock ownership in Cowboy's, Inc., was scheduled to be held in Fort Lauderdale on or about April 23, 1980. Originally, the applicants intended to purchase the stock by borrowing $300,000 entirely from Bern Builders, Inc. Bern Builders, Inc., is solely owned and operated by Anita Grizaffi and Bernard Grizaffi. Prior to the closing and in anticipation of borrowing the purchase price entirely from Bern Builders, Inc., applicants filed with DABT their Notice of Stock Ownership and Certificate of Incumbency showing that they were the new officers, directors, and stockholders of the licensee corporation. In addition, applicants filed with DABT their personal data questionnaires and disclosed in the appropriate block that they intended to borrow the $300,000 from Bern Builders, Inc. Just prior to the scheduled date of the closing, the sellers informed the purchasers that for reasons totally unrelated to any matters pertinent to this proceeding, they would not close the deal. Applicants and their corporate attorney from Chicago, Irv Ribstein, forced the sale of the stock and the closing took place on April 23, 1950. In order to close the deal and since it was impossible for the applicants to receive the $300,000 from Bern Builders, Inc., as originally hoped, it was necessary for them to generate sufficient funds from other sources to pay the sellers. Those funds were obtained and then repaid in full in the following manner: Anita Grizaffi borrowed $150,000 from the Commercial Bank of Chicago. This $150,000 obligation was paid in full from the proceeds of the ownership interest of Anita Grizaffi in a yacht. The sale of this yacht took place pursuant to a Brokerage Purchase and Sales Agreement made April 14, 1980. Anita Grizaffi borrowed $100,000 from the Chicago bank collateralized by her ownership of Certificates of Deposit. This $100,000 was repaid by Anita Grizaffi. A personal loan from Bern Builders, Inc., was obtained in the amount of $50,000. This loan was repaid by the applicants on July 1, 1981. Subsequent to the closing and the original filing of the Certificate of Incumbency and the personal data questionnaires showing the financial arrangements, DABT notified the applicants that while it was not taking final action at that time, it was DABT's intention to deny the change of corporate officers because it believed that there was a person either directly or indirectly involved in the beverage license who was statutorily disqualified. Prior to DABT sending out its official notification of its denial of the change of corporate officers, the applicants filed with DABT the supplemental financial information described in paragraph 8. It showed how the purchase of the stock actually was consummated. DABT, on August 8, 1980, after receiving this supplemental financial information, sent its final agency action letter denying the applicants' request for a change of corporate officers. The basis for DABT's denial of the application was that it believed that the husband of Anita Grizaffi, Bernard Grizaffi, was a convicted felon and that he was directly or indirectly involved in the beverage license. The parties agree that a loan of $50,000 to the applicants from a corporation which had as one of its officers, directors, and stockholders, a convicted felon, would have given Bernard Grizaffi a direct interest in the beverage license in violation of the applicable provisions of the Beverage Law when that transaction occurred. After the applicants had filed the additional supplemental information and DABT had denied the change of corporate officers, a deposition was taken in Tallahassee of Barry Schoenfeld, the Chief of Licensing for DABT. At said deposition, each source of financial investment utilized by applicants to purchase all of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., was disclosed and thoroughly considered. Every dollar of the total investment was accounted for and through cancelled checks, every dollar lent to applicants by Bern Builders, Inc., was shown to have been paid back in full solely from' the proceeds of the operation of Cowboy's, Inc., and that no outstanding financial obligation existed to Bern Builders, Inc., or Bernard Grizaffi, individually. At the deposition of Mr. Schoenfeld, affidavits from bankers in Chicago were submitted showing conclusively that a total of $600,000 would have and could have been loaned to Anita Grizaffi, individually, secured and collateralized by her independent financial interests" at any time during the year of 1980. Bernard Grizaffi executed an affidavit stating that it was never his intention to have any interest whatsoever in the beverage license or the stock of Cowboy's, Inc.; that he had not, was not, and would not exercise any dominion and control whatsoever in the operation of Cowboy's, Inc.; that he was not owed any monies whatsoever by Cowboy's, Inc.; and that he would not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever from the operation of Cowboy's, Inc. On May 16, 1980, the sworn statements of four principal managers and employees of Cowboy's, Inc., who were employees prior to, during, and subsequent to the actual closing of the sale and purchase of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., were taken. Each manager or employee categorically stated that Bernard Grizaffi had no interest whatsoever in Cowboy's, Inc. ; that he had absolutely no power to control Cowboy's, Inc.; that he had never exercised any dominion or control in Cowboy's, Inc.; that they would only take orders from the applicants; and if Bernard Grizaffi ever tried to give them directions or orders, they would first check with applicants prior to doing anything. The only times Bernard Grizaffi had ever been observed in the licensed premises were on obvious social occasions and only on a couple of occasions. On August 22, 1981, the applicants wrote to DABT and indicated that they had and could further demonstrate their financial independence from the otherwise disqualified person. In reply to that letter, DABT clearly demonstrated its policy of permitting changes of corporate officers under like circumstances. Those documents state in applicable part: My client is in a position to show the Division [DABT] that she can and could have, at the time of the actual purchase of the stock occurred finance(d) the entire pur- chase solely from her signature loan. The fact that she chose not to do so at the time of the closing has previously been explained to the Division [DABT] as solely the result of the last minute exigencies necessitated by the sellers at the time of the closing of the deal. My client is prepared to provide to the Division [DABT] affidavits from various bank officers in and around the Chicago area who will attest that each of them would have lent Mrs. Grizaffi, on her signature only, and collateralized by her interest solely, suf- ficient funds to finance the purchase of the stock and the corporation holding the license. At present we possess letters from at least three banks who have indicated that they would have and would today lend to Mrs. Grizaffi in the manner herein contemplated, an amount in excess of $600,000. In addition7 I am prepared to provide to the Division [DABT], an affidavit of the husband that he never intended nor does he have today, nor has he had at any time dur- ing these proceedings, any interest, directly or indirectly, in either the financial acqui- sition of the stock or any right to any financial remuneration from the proceeds of the business. Nor does he have any right nor desire to, nor has he at any time dur- ing these proceedings, run the business. The only connection between himself and the Cowboy's, Inc. is his marital status. (Memorandum from Dennis E. LaRosa, Staff Attorney, to Mary Colson, Assistant Chief of Licensing.) Re: Cowboy's, Inc. In reference to Mr. Curtis's letter to you of August 22, 1980, my opinion is that if Mrs. Grizaffi can demonstrate financial independence of her husband in the manner and method therein described, then the Divi- sion may consider issuing the license. Also, an affidavit from Mr. Grizaffi concerning his interests and intentions would be appro- priate. Please advise if further opinion is required. (From note dated September 2, 1980, from Mary Colson to Barry Schoenfeld, Chief of Licensing.) I agree with Dennis--It would not be the first time we have accepted such documen- tation--your comments, please. Whereupon, applicants, owners of 100 percent of the stock of Cowboy's, Inc., requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the authority of DABT to deny their application for change of corporate officers. Applicants, each individually, meet all of the requirements and qualifications to hold a beverage license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioners' application to change the corporate officers of Cowboy's, Inc., be granted. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Boyd Division of Beverage Post Office Box 8276 Lauderhill, Florida 33310 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Alvin Vickers and Homer Green, t/a Blue Grass Gardens Tallahassee, Florida, hold beverage license 1-COP #75-59. Notice to Show Cause was served by Certified Mail on the address of the Respondents on file with the Division of Beverage. Exhibit 3, certified copy of the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida shows that on November 16, 1976 Homer Green was convicted of possessing chattels of a value in excess of $100 stolen from interstate shipment of freight in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Section 659 as charged. Exhibit 4, Judgment of the United States District Court for the North District of Florida shows that on December 6, 1976 Alvin Vickers was convicted of transporting in interstate commerce a stolen motor vehicle knowing the motor vehicle to have been stolen, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 2312 and 2 as charged. Both Vickers and Green were sentenced to serve 18 months in prison. From the foregoing Findings of Fact it is concluded that the licensees, Green and Vickers, violated the laws of the United States.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 1981, Beverage Officer P. M. Roberts entered the licensed premises of Perrine Pub to Investigate alleged drug violations. He engaged In a conversation with the bartender, Angela Maria Dickens, an employee of the licensee. Dickens subsequently offered to sell Roberts methaqualone (quaaludes). Roberts accepted and ordered the tablets for which he paid Dickens 25 dollars. Dickens obtained the tablets from a storage point behind the bar and delivered them openly to Roberts by placing them on the bar. On January 14, 1981, Beverage Officer Roberts returned to the licensed premises of Perrine Pub accompanied by Beverage Officer R. Jones. After engaging in a conversation concerning drugs, the officers each purchased methaqualone (quaaludes) from Dickens. The tablets were delivered openly from behind the bar, with Roberts purchasing ten tablets and Jones purchasing five. Roberts also purchased one gram of cocaine from Dickens on January 14, 1981. A third person, later identified as Lawrence Donovan, was involved in this transaction. Dickens gave Donovan four 20 dollar bills after receiving four 20 dollar bills from Roberts. Donovan then left the bar, subsequently returning with a package he gave to Dickens. She then delivered the gram of cocaine to Roberts. On January 16, 1981, Beverage Officers Roberts end Jones returned to the licensed premises of Perrine Pub. The officers attempted to purchase drugs from Dickens, who was at the door collecting cover charges. Dickens referred the officers to Marta Horstein who was on duty as the bartender. Jones purchased four methaqualone tablets (quaaludes) from Horstein for ten dollars. Jones gave Dickens one of these methaqualone tablets, which she consumed on the premises. On January 29, 1981, Beverage Officer O. Sams and P. Roberts arrived at the licensed premises to serve an Emergency Order of Suspension. They arrested Marta Horstein as she arrived by automobile. She was apprehended outside the premises and ordered inside by the officers where they searched her incidental to the arrest. The search of her purse revealed substances which she admitted were cocaine and hashish. Respondent Lash, Inc., d/b/a Perrine Pub, holds beverage license Number 23-0898, Series 2-COP. Richard Breeder is the sole stockholder of this corporation, which he actively manages. He has been the owner since 1976, and has not previously been charged with any beverage law violations. Breeder has an announced policy against the sale or use of drugs on the premises, and has fired employees for such use.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violations as alleged in Counts one through five of the Notice to Show Cause. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in Counts six through eight be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Beverage License No. 23-0898, Series 2-COP be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1981.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice To Show Cause and Administrative Actions filed in each of these consolidated causes and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact In May of 1992 Petitioner received an application for the transfer of an alcoholic beverage license, license number 60-05383. That license is a series 2-COP license, authorizing the limited sale and possession of alcoholic beverages, only beer and wine, on the premises. The application requested the transfer of the license to Samul Luc and Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant, 700 Datura Street, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. That application was denied because Martial had a disqualifying narcotics conviction of March 16, 1989. Luc and Martial were notified of that disapproval by letter dated November 4, 1992. Thereafter, Martial and Luc met with Captain Deborah Gray, the district supervisor of Petitioner's West Palm Beach office. She specifically advised Luc and Martial that Martial could have no financial interest at all in the business and could not be listed on the license or even in the lease of the licensed premises. She advised them that Martial could only be a salaried employee. In December 1992, Luc filed a sworn application for that license. This time, the applicant was listed as Samul Luc d/b/a Universal Restaurant, 700 Datura Street. Only Luc's name appeared in that application, and no other person was listed as having an interest in the business. In particular, Martial was not listed as an applicant or as someone having an interest in Universal Restaurant. Respondent paid the $100.00 fee for a temporary license with a check drawn on the First Union National Bank of Florida. The face of the check indicated that the account holder was Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant. Thereafter, whenever a problem arose regarding Universal Restaurant, it was always Erick Martial who came in to see Captain Gray. Captain Gray met with Erick Martial three or four times. The only meeting attended by Luc was the first meeting with Captain Gray at which she explained to both Martial and Luc that Martial could have no financial interest in the business. Accordingly, Captain Gray opened an investigation to ascertain if Martial did have an interest in Universal Restaurant, the licensed premises. The checking account used by Respondent to pay for his temporary license was opened on June 3, 1992, under the names of Samul Luc and Erick Martial d/b/a Universal Restaurant. The account's signature card was updated on August 18, 1993, and thereafter continued to include the names and signatures of Samul Luc and Erick Martial. That account has remained open and active through the time of the final hearing in this cause. On January 27, 1993, Special Agent Charlene Self went to the licensed premises to investigate the possible undisclosed interest of Martial. Luc was not present. Self asked to speak to the person in charge, and Martial said that he was that person. He further advised her that he was Luc's partner in the business. Self told him that he was not qualified to be a partner in the business, and Martial said that he was not aware of that. On August 3, 1993, Special Agent James Griffin went to the licensed premises to conduct an inspection. In the course of his inspection, he discovered and seized a partially-full bottle of vodka from behind the bar. The label on the bottle clearly identified the bottle as containing vodka, a distilled spirit, and Griffin's examination verified that the bottle contained vodka, a beverage not permitted to be sold or possessed under a 2-COP series license. Martial came in and identified himself to Griffin as a co-owner of the establishment. Martial told Griffin that the bottle of vodka was his personal bottle and that he knew that the beverage license of Universal Restaurant was for beer and wine only. Griffin returned to the premises on August 25, 1993, at the request of the West Palm Beach Police Department after being advised that Police Officer Tureaud had discovered a bottle of whiskey at the licensed premises. In the course of Griffin's inspection, he discovered and seized a three-quarters full bottle of Haitian rum. The label on the bottle clearly identified the bottle as containing rum, a distilled spirit, and Griffin's examination verified that the bottle contained Haitian rum, a beverage not permitted to be sold or possessed under a 2-COP series license. During that inspection, Martial came in and again identified himself as a co-owner of the restaurant. In response to Griffin's inquiries regarding the presence of the Haitian rum, Martial stated that the rum was used in cooking. Griffin then asked to see the restaurant's menus to see which food items called for rum in the cooking process, but Martial advised him that there were no menus listing food items that included rum as an ingredient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Revoking Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 60-05383, Series 2-COP, and Assessing against Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 to be paid by a date certain. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. Samul Luc Universal Restaurant 700 Datura Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 John J. Harris, Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
