[Edited January 25, 2025]
Two relatively recent New York County Supreme Court decisions uphold SLA approvals of liquor licenses over the objection of local residents. One decision (Senter) upholds dancing and live music over the objections of a local community group and involved a stipulation. The Community Board had “forced” the establishment to enter into a stipulation which included a prohibition of dancing. Even so, some local residents did not concur with the Community Board. Anyone considering changes to the Alcohol Beverage Law applicable to the State Liquor Authority shoud be intimately familiar with these decisions, but imporantly the Circus Disco case and the subsequent amendments to the ABC law overruling Circus Disco. This is what ties the hands of the SLA
In the other decision (Eldridge), the SLA Board approved a license when the Community Board did not respond in time. Note that the case was brought by a Neighborhood Association, since it appears that a Community Board may have no standing to initiate litigation.
These decisions discussed the 1980 Circus Disco case (see below) and the legislation which overruled that case. It is critical to understand this history of the authority of the SLA and why Community Boards are involved in the SLA licenses.
[We have included the link to the web site of the courts providing links to documents filed in the case. Among other things, the filed documents include documents which the SLA does not provide in response to a FOIL request – such a communications among the SLA and community boards and residents and the notice provided by the applicant to the Community Board.]
The decisions are:
MATTER OF SENTER v. New York State Liq. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 33302 – NY: Supreme Court 2024 161325/2023. (Court FIle Case Documents.)
The documents filed in court contains as exhibits various documents one would expect to receive when filing a FOIL request with the SLA. The SLA does not seem to be able to collect the relevant documents. For those used to organized agencies, one would expect to see a license application number included on each page of each documents, often with a bar code. This is not seen in the documents filed in court. This is a standard way for an agency to collect and maintain documents – the SLA seems not to have an organized way to manage its documents.
MATTER OF ELDRIDGE ST. BLOCK ASSN. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 34206 – NY: Supreme Court 2022 156323/2022 (Court File Case Documents.)
These decisions cited the following less recen decisions.
233 W. 4th ST. TENANTS ASSOC. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 32624 – NY: Supreme Court 2022 153773/2022 (Court File Case Documents.)
Matter of Soho Alliance v New York State Liq. Auth., 32 AD3d 363 (1st Dept 2006) in support of opposition to license. (Court File Case Documents.)
Earlier important decisions cited are:
Statutory and caselaw cited by the court:
- Circus Disco v New York State Liq. Auth. (51 NY2d 24 1980)
- Cleveland Place Neighborhood Assn. v New York State Liquor Auth., 268 AD2d 6, 9-10 [4th Dept 2000]
- BarFreeBedford v New York State Liquor Auth. (130 AD3d at 75-78),
Important statutory provisions are.
- Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64(7)(b)
- Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64(7)(f)
- Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64[6-a])