New York Law Review

Matter of Bell Tavern, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 47 N.Y.2d 1034 (1979): Liquor License Revocation for Lewd Conduct

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

47 N.Y.2d 1034 (1979)

A liquor license can be revoked where substantial evidence supports a finding that the licensee permitted lewd and indecent conduct on the premises, even without direct contact between performers and patrons.

Summary

Bell Tavern, Inc. had its liquor license revoked by the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) due to nude dancing performances on the premises, which the SLA found to be lewd and indecent. The licensee appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and constitutional concerns. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order, reinstating the SLA’s determination. The court found that substantial evidence supported the SLA’s findings of lewd and indecent conduct, justifying the license revocation under Section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Law. The court clarified that the duration of the acts and lack of physical contact were factors, but not definitive proof against lewdness.

Facts

Bell Tavern, Inc. held a liquor license in New York. The SLA conducted an investigation and found that on two occasions, nude dancers at the tavern engaged in lewd and indecent acts during their performances. There was no allegation of direct physical contact between the performers and the patrons. The SLA initiated proceedings to revoke Bell Tavern’s liquor license based on these findings.

Procedural History

The SLA revoked Bell Tavern’s liquor license. Bell Tavern appealed this decision. The lower court reversed the SLA’s determination. The SLA appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order and reinstated the SLA’s original determination to revoke the license.

Issue(s)

Whether the State Liquor Authority presented substantial evidence to support its finding that Bell Tavern permitted lewd and indecent conduct on its premises, justifying the revocation of its liquor license.

Holding

Yes, because there was substantial evidence to support the authority’s findings that the performances were lewd and indecent per se, in violation of section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals determined that the hearing officer’s specific findings of lewd and indecent acts during nude dancing performances were supported by substantial evidence. The court referenced Section 106 of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Law, which prohibits licensees from permitting disorderly conduct on their premises. The court distinguished the case from others (e.g., Matter of Beale Props. v State Liq. Auth.) while aligning it with cases (e.g., Matter of Inside Straight v State Liq. Auth.) where similar conduct justified license revocation. The court clarified that factors like the temporal duration of the acts and the absence of direct contact between performers and patrons are merely circumstances to be considered by the fact-finders, not conclusive determinants. The court stated, “The temporal duration of the lewd and indecent acts and the lack of direct contact between performers and patrons were but circumstances for consideration by the fact finders in making their determination.” The court declined to address constitutional arguments, as the revocation was based on substantial evidence of lewd conduct, which is not constitutionally protected.

More ARTICLES