Opinion
May 14, 1998
Appeal from the New York State Liquor Authority.
The evidence does not support the respondent's finding that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 Alco. Bev. Cont. (6) on June 8, 1996, since the events that culminated in a patron striking a band member were unexpected and of such a brief duration that petitioner could not have prevented them through reasonable supervision ( see, Matter of Beer Garden v. New York State Liq. Auth., 79 N.Y.2d 266, 276-277; Matter of City world Enters. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 183 A.D.2d 402).
There was, however, substantial evidence to support respondent's finding that patrons were directly served from a service bar in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 100 Alco. Bev. Cont. (4) ( see, Matter of Square Rigger Bar v. New York State Liq. Auth., 181 A.D.2d 611), and that the subject premises were overcrowded for a sufficiently lengthy time that the manager should have known of the condition and prevented the premises from becoming disorderly ( see, Matter of Beer Garden v. New York State Liq. Auth., supra; see also, Matter of 7th Ave. Grove St. Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 215 A.D.2d 107; Matter of Lois, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 380).
Even were we not annulling the violation based upon the June 8, 1996 altercation/assault, we would find the penalty of revocation harsh and excessive. For the reasons stated, the matter is remanded to the agency for imposition of an appropriate penalty.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.