Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. GOODLETTE FOOD MART, INC., T/A GOODLETTE FOOD, 83-001934 (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 83-001934 Latest Update: Oct. 14, 1983

The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for a violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes, a provision of the Florida Beverage Law, which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses: Thomas L. Stout, Bernard W. Cooper, Timothy J. Culley, and Craig Brady Cooper. Mr. Antonino Sciarrino testified on behalf of respondent. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence two exhibits and the Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence. Both the Respondent and counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the hearing officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions of law are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions contained within this order they were considered by the hearing officer and rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.

Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action the Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 21-478, Series 2COP. This license was issued for the licensed premises located at 499 Goodlette Road, Naples, Florida. The licensed premises is a convenience store that also sells various types of food and dry good items plus sandwiches and beer. The Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. is owned and managed by Antonino Sciarrino, the President of the Respondent corporation. The Goodlette Food Mart opened for business on January 1, 1982. Prior to this time Mr. Sciarrino operated a deli in New York City where he also sold beer. Sometime during October, 1982 (the specific date being unknown) , Craig Cooper, a minor, 16 years of age was stopped by a Naples police officer and found to be in the possession of a six-pack of beer. This beer had been purchased by Craig Cooper at the Goodlette Food Mart and he informed the police officer of this fact. Mr. Cooper was asked by the police officer if he would be willing to cooperate in a controlled buy at the Goodlette Food Mart. Mr. Cooper indicated that he would. Subsequent to the October stop Craig Cooper agreed to cooperate with the police in making a controlled purchase of alcoholic beverages at the Goodlette Food Mart and on November 6, 1982, Mr. Cooper was contacted by a Naples police officer and was given cash. He was asked to go to the Goodlette Food Mart and to use the cash he had been given to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. From the police station Craig Cooper drove to the Goodlette Food Mart and Officer Culley of the Naples Police Department followed him. While Craig Cooper went inside the Goodlette Food Mart Officer Culley observed from the parking lot, Craig Cooper entered the Goodlette Food Mart and went directly to the cooler area where soft drinks and alcoholic beverages are kept. He removed a six-pack of Heineken Beer. He then proceeded to the cash register and paid for the beer. The cashier on duty was Robert Peterson. He did not question Craig Cooper or ask him for any identification at the time that Mr. Cooper paid for the beer. Mr. Cooper then left the store and turned the beer over to Officer Culley. At the time of the purchase by Craig Cooper, the manager Antonino Sciarrino was not present in the store. Mr. Sciarrino, was in the store 10 to 12 hours a day, but was generally not present in the evenings. Robert Peterson had been hired as a part-time employee approximately two or three months prior to November 6, 1982. Mr. Sciarrino had no prior problems with Robert Peterson and was not aware of any instances where he had sold beer to minors. At the time Robert Peterson was hired, he was instructed to not sell to minors and to always ask for and check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There was also a sign posted in the employees room where they clock in and clock out which warned them that they could be criminally prosecuted for failing to check identification and for selling alcoholic beverages to minors. The Goodlette Food Mart had a policy against selling to minors and all employees were instructed regarding this policy and were required to check identification prior to selling alcoholic beverages. There were signs posted on the cooler and the cash register informing customers that minors were prohibited from purchasing alcoholic beverages and that identification was required, There was also a sign next to the cash register which reminded the cashier to check the customers' I.D. when purchasing alcoholic beverages. This sign also gave the date and year which the birthdate on the identification had to predate in order for the person to purchase alcoholic beverages. The purpose of this sign was to enable employees to more efficiently and more accurately check identifications. Immediately following notification of the November 6, 1982, sale to Craig Cooper, Mr. Sciarrino terminated Robert Peterson's employment with the Goodlette Food Mart.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That thee Respondent be found not guilty of the violation charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that the charge be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 14th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice G. Scott, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Antonino Sciarrino, President Goodlette Food Mart, Inc. 499 Goodlette Road Naples, Florida Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (2) 561.29562.11
# 1
HOOTERS OF LAKE UNDERHILL, LLC, D/B/A HOOTERS OF WATERFORD LAKES vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, 07-005214 (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Nov. 13, 2007 Number: 07-005214 Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2008

The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a special restaurant license (4COP-SRX) can be deemed incomplete for failure to obtain zoning approval from the local government.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a restaurant duly-licensed by the State of Florida to serve food and certain alcoholic beverages. It currently holds a 2COP restaurant license, which allows it to sell beer and wine along with its food products. Petitioner has held the 2COP license since opening in calendar year 2002. Petitioner derives 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. It is in an area of Orange County which is zoned for commercial property and has the appropriate land use code for a restaurant chain. Petitioner's facility is presently located within 500 feet of a local school. The school was built a year or two after Petitioner began operation of its restaurant. In order for Petitioner to obtain an upgraded license so that it can serve other alcoholic beverages (i.e., liquor) it must submit an application to Respondent. Petitioner duly- submitted such an application on February 5, 2007. The application sought to upgrade Petitioner's license to a 4COP-SRX license. The 4COP license would allow for sale of all alcoholic beverages. Section 5 of the Application addresses zoning for the restaurant. Section 5 includes the following: Are there outside areas which are contiguous to the premises which are to be part of the premises sought to be licensed? [Petitioner answered, Yes.] If this application is for issuance of an alcoholic beverage license where zoning approval is required, the zoning authority must complete "A" and "B". If zoning is not required, the applicant must complete section "B". The location complies with zoning requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages or wholesale tobacco products pursuant to this application for a Series 4COP SRX license. Signed Title Date Is the location within limits of an "Incorporated City or Town"? Yes No If yes, enter the name of the city or town: Petitioner filled in the address portion of Section 5, but did not have a zoning authority complete Section A, nor did Petitioner complete Section B. Respondent deemed the Application incomplete due to Petitioner's failure to complete Section 5. On July 25, 2007, a Final Warning Notice was sent to Petitioner, allowing Petitioner ten additional days to submit zoning approval for the Application. When no zoning approval was returned within the prescribed period, Respondent issued its Intent to Deny License. Petitioner did make an inquiry to the local zoning authority concerning its application to increase the level of its license. However, by letter dated February 22, 2007, the Orange County Zoning Division notified Petitioner as follows: We have received your request for an increase in series to the alcoholic beverage license at Hooters Lake Underhill, 11425 Underhill Road, Orlando. On February 22, 2007 we conducted a distance check to see if the proposed location satisfied the separation requirements contained in the Orange County Code. The results of our inspection reveal that the proposed location is 407 ft. from Legacy Middle School at 11398 Lake Underhill Road. Since this location cannot satisfy the 1000 ft. separation requirement from the nearest school, this office cannot issue zoning approval for the increase in series.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, denying the application filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008.

Florida Laws (6) 120.569120.57125.66166.041561.422562.45
# 2
DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. SANO ENTERPIRSES, INC., OF FT. MYERS, T/A ALLEN`S NIGHT FLIGHT, 86-002555 (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 86-002555 Latest Update: Oct. 02, 1987

Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1984, the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division), issued alcoholic beverage license number 46-1196, Series 4-COP, to the Respondent, Sano Enterprises, Inc., of Ft. Myers, t/a Allen's Night Flight, for use at 6260 South Cleveland Avenue, Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. After April 22, 1985, the NCNB National Bank of Florida, Inc. (NCNB) foreclosed on the Respondent's assets, including its beverage license. The Division approved the transfer of the license to NCNB at some time after May 6, 1987. During the evening of August 16, 1985, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Respondent's manager transported in a vehicle registered to O. C. Allen, Jr., four cases of alcoholic beverages (by logical inference, more than 12 bottles) to the Respondent's licensed premises for resale. The vehicle was not permitted by the Division to transport alcoholic beverages for resale. O. C. Allen, Jr., is the husband of Respondent's sole owner, director and officer. He had a power of attorney to act for the Respondent. The Division's penalty guidelines call for a minimum penalty of $250 for the violation charged in charge 19, the civil penalty the Division seeks to impose under charge 19.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic and Tobacco, enter a final order: (1) dismissing all of the charges in the Notice To Show Cause in this case except charge 19; (2) holding the Respondent, Sano Enterprises, Inc., of Ft. Myers, t/c Allen's Night Flight, guilty of violating charge 19 of the Notice To Show Cause for illegally transporting alcoholic beverages in a vehicle without a permit; and (3) imposing on the Respondent a civil penalty of $250. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2555 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), the following explicit rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; the rest rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as subordinate to facts not found and as unnecessary. Also, see Evidentiary Rulings, above. See 3, above. Also the last sentence is not supported by the record, and the alleged management agreement (unsigned) did not list the names Jose or Shields, according to the evidence. See 3, above. Unnecessary in light of the Findings Of Fact. Accepted. In part incorporated and in part subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence accepted and incorporated; second sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts found. 3.-8. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. See 3-8, above, except last sentence is rejected to the extent that there was testimony albeit hearsay. See 3-8, above. Except for last sentence, see 3-8, above; last sentence, subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 12.-13. See 3-8, above. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 Sandra Allen, Esquire P. O. Box 10616 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daniel Bosanko Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 Thomas A. Bell General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927

Florida Laws (6) 120.57561.14561.29561.32562.0790.803
# 8

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer