SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ALBANY EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS LLC Petitioner, AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM S. NOLAN Index No: GFA ly -against- NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, DENNIS ROSEN, as Commissioner of the New York State Liquor Authority, JACQUELINE P, FLUG, as Records Access Officer of the New York State Liquor oalbany County Authority, and THOMAS J, DONOHUE, as the Ret Monte » Clerk Records Access Appeals Officer of the New York State O14 259 8 Liquor Authority Respondents. STATE OF NEWYORK) dss. COUNTY OF ALBANY) WILLIAM S. NOLAN, being duly swom, hereby deposes and says: Hy 1 Tam a member of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, counsel to Petitioner Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC (“Empire”), and as such, I am fully familiar with the facts of this matter. I submit this affidavit in support of the Verified Petition herein. 2. This is a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR and Article 6 of the Public Officers Law, also known as the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”).3. Empire is a wine and spirits retailer owned and operated by Bradley Junco, who holds an active license issued by SLA to sell wine and spirits through Empire. 4. On or about August I, 2014, SLA served Empire with a Notice of Pleading alleging sixteen violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n) for shipping wine to customers in sixteen different states, Even though there is no New York statute or regulation barring shipments of wine to these other states, SLA has taken the unprecedented position that Empire's shipping practices constitute “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n), warranting revocation of Empire’s license because such other states allegedly do not permit their residents to receive wine through the mail. 5. Empire is scheduled to appear for a disciplinary hearing before an administrative law judge beginning on January 23, 2014. 6. Onor about September 26, 2014, Empire submitted a FOIL request to SLA which seeks documents related to SLA’s policies and procedures regarding interstate shipments, the types of conduct prohibited as “improper conduct,” and SLA’s files regarding Empire. A copy of Empire's September 26, 2014 FOIL request is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7, On or about November 2, 2014, the Records Access Officer responded to Empire’s FOIL request by granting it in part and denying the remainder. A copy of the Records Access Officer's November 2, 2014 determination is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 8. Because it appeared that the Records Access Officer baselessly denied many of Empire’s specific requests, on or about November 11, 2014, Empire appealed the RecordsAccess Officer's determination, A copy of Empire’s November 11, 2014 appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9. Ono about December 5, 2014, the Appeals Officer issued a final determination of Empire's appeal, which reversed portions of the initial determination and upheld the remainder. A copy of the Appeals Officer’s December 5, 2014 determination is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 10. Notably, the Appeals Officer identified several instances where the Records Access Officer falsely represented that no responsive documents exist, when in fact, Respondents were in possession of responsive documents (see Ex. D, at 6, 12, 14). 11, These concessions call into question Respondents’ diligence in searching for and identifying documents responsive to Empire’s FOIL request, particularly because the Records Access Officer failed to provide a certification that Respondents do not possess the purportedly nonexistent records pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89(3)(2). 12. Despite acknowledging the Records Access Officer’s misrepresentations, the Appeals Officer repeatedly stated that he “relfied) on the representation by agency staff that the records provided to [him] includes [sic] any and all records . . . falling within the desetiption of the particular category” of documents requested by Empire (Ex. D, at 1). In the Appeals Officer's own words, he “did not conduct [his] own review or search of agency records to determine if additional records exist,” which casts doubt over the entirety of Respondents? determination that certain records do not exist (id. at 2).13. Indeed, upon information and belief, Respondents failed to produce documents. known to be in Respondents possession, claiming, remarkably, that such documents do not exist. Specifically, Empire requested “[fJormal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, reflect or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York” (Ex. A). While Respondents purported to grant this request (Ex. B, at 5), their response was incomplete 14, Upon information and belief, Respondents received numerous complaints through SLA’s website’ that are responsive to Empire’s request. In fact, it has been specifically brought to my attention by several anonymous complainants that SLA has received complaints through its website that relate to the shipment of alcoholic beverages to customers outside the State of New York. 15, These complaints were not included in Respondents’ response to Empire’s FOIL, request, ‘Thus, it appears that Respondents failed to perform a diligent search of their records, destroyed the responsive documents, or worse, intentionally withheld responsive documents, 16. The circumstances suggest that Respondents denied Empire's requests in an attempt to stifle Empire's ability to defend itself against SLA’s allegations and to impede any subsequent litigation Empire may bring to review SLA’s improper conduct charges or its selective enforcement against Empire, " ptep:liwww.srans.abe. state ny 1s/TSP/complaintreg/ComplaintRegistry age.jsp 4‘This Court Should Annul Respondents’ Denial of Empire’s FOIL Request and Compel Production of the Records 17. All records of a public agency “are presumptively open to public inspection, without regard to need or purpose of the applicant” (Matter of Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr. y Signor, 5 NY3d 435, 440-41 [2005], quoting Matter of Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enter. Dev. Corp,, 84 NY2d 488, 492 [1994]; Public Officers Law § 87). 18. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly and “firmly held that ‘FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government” (Buffalo News, 84 NY2d at 492, quoting Matter of Russo v Nassau County Cmty. Coll. 81 NY2d 690, 697 [1993]). In order to deny disclosure, an agency bears the burden of showing that the requested information “falls squarely within a FOIL exemption by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access” (Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 462-63 [2007], quoting Matter of Capital Newspapers Div, of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d 562, 566 [1986]; Matter of Daily Gazette v City of Schenectady, 93 NY2d 145, 158-159 [1999]}. Respondent SLA is an agency subject to POIL’s disclosure requirements (see Buffalo News, 84 NY2d at 492). 19, Respondents failed to meet this burden, and instead, “merely repeatfed] the statutory phrasing of [] exemption{s]” as bases for their denials, which is “insufficient to establish the requirement of particularity” (DJL Rest. Corp. v Dept. of Bldgs. of City of New York, 273 AD2d 167, 168-69 [1st Dept 2000)),20. Where an agency “merely quote[s] the statutory language of the exemption without enumerating or deseribing any of the documents withheld and without offering a factual basis for the claims of exemption,” the agency fails to satisfy its burden (Rose v Albany County Dist. Attorney's Off, 11) AD3d 1123, 1126 [3d Dept 2013]). 21. Compounding this problem, Respondents failed to produce a single document in redacted form, which suggests that Respondents made no effort to satisfy their duty to redact responsive documents that also contain exempt material (The New York Times Co. v City of New York Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 487 (2005] [holding that the “correct application of the [FOIL] statute” requires an agency to produce documents containing exempt material in redacted form]; Gould v New York City Police Dept, 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996] [“appropriately redacted material” must be produced]). 22. Respondents’ duty to redact applies to, for example, material that is exempt under the inter- or intra-agency exemption (Public Officers Law § 87[2][g]), but that also contains “factual data” that does not qualify for the exemption (The New York Times Co,, 4 NY3d at 487), Such documents must be produced in redacted form (id). 23. Respondents’ denial is rife with other errors of law as well. For example, Respondents withheld audio recordings of interviews on the ground that disclosure would reveal “investigative techniques and procedures,” which are exempt under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(e) and Fink v Lefkowite (47 NY23d 567 [1979]). However, this exemption applies only to “nonroutine” investigative techniques, and not interviews, which are decidedly “routine”investigative techniques and subject to disclosure under FOIL (Beyah v Goord, 309 AD2d 1049, 1051 [3d Dept 2003] [directing disclosure of interviews). 24, Respondents also denied disclosure on the ground that responsive documents were too voluminous and that producing them “is clearly not contemplated by the Public Officer's Law” (Ex. B, at 2). Contrary to Respondents’ misplaced assertion, the Public Officers Law expressly bars agencies from denying requests “on the basis that the request is voluminous or that locating or reviewing the requested records or providing the requested copies is burdensome” (Public Officers Law § 89[3J[al). 25. The Appeals Officer recognized this blatant error in response to Empire’s appeal, however he further prejudiced Empire by purporting to allow Respondents an extra sixty days to respond to Empire’s request (Ex. D, at 5). Sixty days is a patently unreasonable amount of time because, as Respondents readily admit, “[t]he search to identify the relevant documents has been ; New York State Committee done” and the “only remaining step is to retrieve the records” (j on Open Government, Advisory Opinion No. 10833 [“if a recond or report is clearly public and can be found easily, there would appear to be no rational basis for delaying disclosure for as much as thirty days”), attached hereto as Exhibit E). 26. The sixty day deadline is even more unreasonable because it would deny Empire the ability to use the documents in its defense at the fast-approaching hearing on January 23, 2015, This is particularly so given that the delay is entirely Respondents’ fault. Empire submitted its FOIL request on September 26, 2014 and Respondents were required to produce responsive documents within twenty business days of their acknowledgement of Empire’s 7request (Public Officers Law § 89{3][a)). Instead, Respondents basclessly denied Empire's request, forcing Empire to appeal the denial and further delaying disclosure of the documents. Because this delay is solely attributable to Respondents’ clear error of law in denying the initial request, Empire should not be penalized by allowing Respondents to further delay production of the documents, 27, Respondents also denied disclosure of documents on the basis that they constitute “attomey work product,” despite that the privilege is clearly inapplicable to the responsive documents. The “work product” of an attomey “is a very narrowly construed concept, including only materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his analysis and trial strategy” Graf v Aldrich, 94 AD2d 823, 824 [3d Dept 1983]). Contrary to Respondents’ assertion, “[n]ot every manifestation of a lawyer’s labors enjoys the absolute immunity of work product” (Hoffinan v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207, 211 [1st Dept 1980)). Indeed, “{mJaterials or documents that could have been prepared by a layperson do not fall within the attorney work product exception” (Salzer ex rel. Salzer v Farm Family Life Ins. Co., 280 AD2d 844, 846 [3d Dept 2001]; accord Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 263 AD2d 367, 368 [Ist Dept 1999]). For example, when an attorney is acting as an investigator, the records of his or her investigation do not constitute attorney work product (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Am. Home Assur. Co.,23 AD3d 190, 191 [1st Dept 2005}). 28. Moreover, the documents that Respondents claim are attorney work product include correspondence with government agencies outside the state of New York (Ex. D, at 9- 10), Because they were disclosed to third parties, any privilege was destroyed and thesedocuments may no longer constitute work product (Morgan v New York State Dept, of Envtl Conservation, 9 AD3d 586 [3d Dept 2004] [“documentary communications are not confidential if copies thereof are sent to third parties”). 29. In any event, “[t]he burden of establishing the application of the exemption rests on the party resisting discovery. The respondents’ mere assertion that items constitute an attomey's work product, or are materials prepared for litigation, will not suffice” (Doe v Poe, 244 AD2d 450, 451-52 [2d Dept 1997} aff, 92 NY2d 864 [1998]). In fact, “{t]he attorney work- product privilege requires an attomey affidavit showing that the information was generated by an attomey for the purpose of litigation” (Coastal Oil New York, Inc. v Peck, 184 AD2d 241, 241 [Ist Dept 1992). Respondents have utterly failed to meet this burden. 30. Additionally, Respondents denied disclosure of documents on the ground that disclosure would “interfere” with investigations into Empire because the documents “relate to ongoing or recent conduct” (Ex. D, at 11). However, information is not exempt from disclosure merely because it “relates” to an ongoing investigation. Rather, to qualify for the exemption, the information must “enable petitioners or similar entities to frustrate pending or prospective investigations” (Council of Regulated Adult Lig, Licensees v City of New York Police Depit., 300 AD24d 17 [Ist Dept 2002) 31, Here, disclosure cannot frustrate a pending investigation of Empire because Empire has already been charged and is scheduled to appear at a license revocation proceeding on January 32, 2015. Thus, the investigation of Empire is complete and cannot be “frustrated” by disclosure of the requested documents. In any event, to the extent the responsive documents 9truly contain information that may frustrate an investigation, Respondents must redact that nformation and produce the documents (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., Ine. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 155 AD2d 106, 111 [3d Dept 1990). 32. Respondents also denied disclosure of a “handout provided to agency prosecutors as part of a training” on the ground that it constitutes inter- or intra-agency material under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g) (Ex. D, at 6). However, because this document consists of “instructions to staff that afffect the public,” it does not qualify for the exemption (Committee on Open Government, Advisory Opinion No, 16429 [advising that disclosure of document held by school is required because it “instructs [2 teacher] in relation to duties that he performs concerning students”), attached hereto as Exhibit F). 33. Additionally, Respondents denied disclosure of documents on the ground that the documents “have already been provided to [Empire] as ‘discovery’ with respect to a pending disciplinary proceeding” (Ex. D, at 15). However, in its September 23, 2014 cover letter enclosing the discovery materials, SLA represented that those materials included only those that it may introduce into evidence at the administrative hearing. A copy of the September 23, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G, Importantly, SLA did not produce all documents relevant to Empize, as in a typical litigation, but only those documents that support its charges against Empire. Thus, it appears that Respondents omitted documents that that SLA does not intend to introduce at the hearing, which may include documents constituting mitigating evidence or tending to show that Empire is not guilty of the alleged charges. In any event, where an agency denies a FOIL request on the basis that the materials have already been provided in the course of 10litigation discovery, the agency must “provide competent proof” demonstrating that “documents responsive fo these requests were previously provided to petitioner during discovery” (Rose v Albany County Dist. Attorney's Off, 111 AD3d 1123, 1126 [3d Dept 2013]). Respondents have failed to provide such proof. This Court Should Compel Respondents to Perform Their Mandatory ‘erial Duty to Disclose the Requested SLA Documents 34, The remedy of mandamus is available to compel a governmental entity or officer to perform a ministerial duty, so long as the petitioner can show a “clear legal right” to relief (see CPLR 7803(1); Matter of Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 679 [1994]). “The availability of the remedy depends ‘not on the [petitioner's] substantive entitlement to prevail, but on the nature of the duty sought to be commanded — ie., mandatory, nondiscretionary action’ (Brusco, 84 NY2¢ at 679, quoting Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Cir. v Moore, 52. NY2d 88, 97 [1981}). 35. Public Officers Law § 87(2) provides that “[eJach agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records,” with certain limited statutory exemptions (emphasis added). Accordingly, SLA has a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty under FOIL to provide access to all documents requested by Empire~ unless SLA establishes that these documents fall “squarely within a FOIL exemption[,] by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access” (Data Tree, 9 NY3d at 462). 36. Empire properly requested that Respondents provide access to the SLA records under FOIL, and then appealed Respondents’ denial of this request. As such, under the PublicOfficers Law, Respondents have mandatory and non-diseretionary statutory and regulatory duties to provide Empire with access to the SLA documents, and have no discretion to choose to withhold the documents simply because they do not wish to provide them. No legal basis exists under the Public Officers Law to deny Empire access to the requested SLA records, Consequently, Empire is entitled to mandamus compelling Respondents to produce the records. Empire is Entitled to an Award of Attorneys’ Fees 37. Ina FOWL proceeding, the court may award counsel fees and other litigation costs to a litigant who substantially prevails, when the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access to the requested records” (New York Civil Liberties Union v City of Saratoga Springs, 87 AD3d 336, 337-38 [3d Dept 2011]; Public Officers Law § 89[4][c] [“The court in ... afn Article 78] proceeding may assess, against such agency involved, reasonable counsel’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by [the petitioner] in any case under the provisions of this section in which such person has substantially prevailed, when: i, the agency had no reasonable basis for denying access”). 38. — Because Respondents have baselessly withheld the requested records, Empire is, entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in preparing the FOIL request, the appeal, and in prosecuting this proceeding, 1239, For these reasons, and those set forth in detail in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Empire respectfully requests that this Court annul Respondents’ determination, compel Respondents to produce the requested records, award Empire its reasonable attomeys’ fees, and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate, JAW WILLIAM 8. NOLAN Sworn to before me this 23" day of December, 2014. Way Pubj oy Sb, Stet How York iid Herne: Cour avoneasgrno04 conmiason Epes Ferny 28, 2047 ‘esas spp wm dee BEXHIBIT AWHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA ur Attorneys at Law www.woh.com One Commerce Plaza Albany, New York 12260 518.487.7600 phone 187.77 fax September 26, 2014 VIA: US Mail & Email (FOIL@sla.ny.gov) New York State Liquor Authority Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control FOIL Office 80 8, Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany, New York 12210 ‘william 5, nolan Partner 8.48773 phone wnolandwoh.com Re: Freedom of Information Request (FOIL) Dear Sir/Madam: This firm represents Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. On Empire’s behalf, and under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law, Article 6 of Public Officers Law, we hereby request copies of all the following documents: lL Emails and other correspondence between or among representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Emails and other correspondence between or among representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Juneo. Audio recordings of interviews ot conversations between any iepresentatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Audio recordings of interviews or conversations between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and anyone else that mention, refer, or relate in any way to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. Notices of Violation, issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014, alleging violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n).10. i. 12, 1B. 15, 16. 17. 18. Documents setting forth any interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1(a). Documents defining “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). Documents listing types of “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(0). Notices of Violation issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014, alleging any unlawful sale or shipment of any alcoholic beverage toa customer or customers in any State outside of New York. Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority's position or poliey on the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensees to customers within the State of New York. Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority’s position or policy on the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensees to customers outside the State of New York. Cease and desist letters issued to out of state businesses for unlawfully shipping alcohol of any type into the State of New York, Cease and desist letiers issued to businesses in the State of New York for shipping, alcohol of any type to customers outside the State of New York. Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Bradley Jumco, Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements, or other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to, or mentioning shipments of alcoholic beverages of any type to customers outside the State of New York. Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements, or _ other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to, or mentioning intemet sales of alcoholic beverages of any type. Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC, ssessetouaniate eras lage OBO fer19, 20. 2. 22. 23, 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. fae Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco, Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor ‘Authority with respect to any action or policy of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. Documents mentioning, reflecting, or relating in any way to the New York State Liquor Authority’s response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any action of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, reflect or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York. Documents mentioning, reflecting, or relating in any way to the New York State Liquor Authority’s response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any action of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junoo. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer, or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Juco, Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York. Emails received or sent by Margarita Marsico of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer, or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Emails received or sent by Margarita Marsico of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which contain the term “Commerce Clause” Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which relate to the ‘New York Siate Liquor Authority’s powers under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n).. Documents generated or prepared in connection with any investigation of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco.Pursuant to Public Officers Law §89(3), we agree to pay the prescribed fee for copying the documents or to undertake any inspection necessary at your offices. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, WIV William $. Nolan foes sehey oat erator fal ea IO aeEXHIBIT BDENNIS ROSEN avionew W cv0MD Se ig 20 GOVERHIOR EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, JEANIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, fae seeeeee aa Kev vista ny gow November 2, 2014 William 8. Nolan, Esq. Whiteman Osterman & Hana LLP One Commerce Plaza Albany, New York 12260 Re: Freedom of Information Request ‘Mr. Nolan: I write in response to your September 26, 2014 request pursuant to the New York Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”). The Authority's response to each request is below. 1. Emails and other correspondence between or among representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. This request is denied. Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(g) states: Each agency shail, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that : ...(g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials [emphasis added] which are not: (i) statistical or factual tabulations or data; (i) instructions to staff thal affect the public; (i) final agency policy or determination; or (iv) external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government; Accordingly, your request for inter-agency and intra-agency emails are denied. The Authority also states that any inter- agency or intra-agency emails referring or relating to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC do not contain any statistical or factual tabulation, Nor is the Authority in possession of any internal instructions to staff that affect the public referring or relating to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC, nor any final agency policy or determination referring or ralating to Empire Wine & Spirits LLC. Finally, the Authority is not in possession of any external audits referring or relating to Empire Wine & Spirits LLC. 1Inter-agency or intra-ageney emails or other correspondences referring or regarding Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC which the Authority is in possession of constitute legal opinions and recommendations by members of Counsel's Office to other members of Counsel's Office and/or members of the Wholesale Bureau, Courls have routinely held such materials are exempt from FOIL as ‘communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions.” See Matter of Mothers on the Move v. Messer 236 A.D.2d 408 citing New York 1 News v. Office of the President, 231 A.D.2d 524. Citing to the necessity for the free exchange of ideas between government policy makers, courts hold these communications to be exempt under FOIL. 1d. 2, Emails and other correspondence between or among representative or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. This request is denied for the same reasons as stated above in 1. 3. Audio recordings of interviews or conversations between any representative or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees or Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC, This request is granted, You note in your letter that you represent Empire Wine & Spits, LLC and the Authority is in possession of your Notice of Appearance stating such. These rocording are investigatory in nature however, since they are recordings of your client and your client's employees who were present for these recordings, represented by counsel and aware of these recordings the Authority will release them pursuant to your request. Enclosed please find three CDs labeled: A.Morey; Bradley Junco 8-9-13 and; Bradley Junco 4-22-13. This constitutes the entirety of the recordings of employees and or representatives of Empire Wines & Spirits, LLC that the Authority possesses. 4. Audio recordings of interviews or conversations between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and anyone else that mention, refer, or relate in any way to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco, This request is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(a)(iv). Materials which reveal investigative techniques and procedures are exempt. The records requested concern the wholesale and retail sale of alcoholic beverages which is a specialized industry. Accordingly, said records contain specialized methods of conducting an investigation which is particular to the Authority and this industry. Such specialized techniques have been held to be exempt from F.O.I.L. requests. See Fink v. Lefkowitz 47 N.Y.2d 567 (1979). 5, Notices of Violation, issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014, alleging violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). This request is denied as it would require a manual search and print of over two thousand Notices of Violations. That is an effort which is clearly not contemplated by the Public Officer's Law. In an attempt to accommodate your request, the Authority has enclosed a list of all wo thousand one hundred and seventy one Notices of Violation issued by the 2Authority between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014 alleging violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). See enclosed pages EWS1 -EWS98, 6. Documents setting forth any interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). This request is denied. Neither the Members of the Authority nor the Authority's Office of Counsel have created any documents setting forth an interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 58.1(n). 7. Documents defining “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). This requost is denied. Neither the Members of the Authority nor the Authority's Office of Counsel have created any documents setting forth an interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). 8. Documents listing types of “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). This request is granted in that the Authority does not possess a “document” which lists types of ‘improper conduct” but the Authority does have a computer system titled Compliance which contains a list of improper conduct charges used by attorneys in Counsel's Office. A print out is enclosed. See page EWS99. 9. Notices of Violation issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014, alleging any unlawful sale or shipment of any alcoholic beverage to a customer or customers in any State outside of New York. This request is granted. See pages EWS100- EWS110. 10. Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority’s position or policy on direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensees to customers within the State of New York. This request is granted, See pages EWS111-EWS118. 11.Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority’s position or policy on the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensees to customers outside the State of New York. The request is granted. See pages EWS100-EWS110 and EW119. 12. Cease and desist letters issue to out of state businesses for unlawfully shipping alcohol of any type into the State of New York. This request is granted. See pages EWS136-EWS141. 13. Cease and desist letters issue to businesses in the State of New York for shipping alcohol of any type to customers outside the State of New York. This request is granted. See pages EWS120- EWS132, 314,Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC? This request is denied. As already noted you represent Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC in the pending enforcement action, case #88869. Discovery for that matter has already been provided to you and therefore this request is duplicative and burdensome on the Authority. 15.Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Bradley Junco. This request is denied. The Authority brings disciplinary actions and conducts investigations regarding licenses not individual people. 16.Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements, or other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to, or mentioning internet sales of aleoholle beverages of any type. This request for inter-agency and intra-agency emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements or other communications is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(g) and the reasons for denial under paragraph 1 of this letter. 17.Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements, or other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to, or mentioning internet sales of alcoholic beverages of any type. This request is granted in part. See pages EWS142-EWS176 reflecting numerous. declaratory rulings by the Members of the Authority regarding internet sales of alcoholic beverages. The request for emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements or other communications between or among representative of the New York State Liquor Authority is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(g) and the reasons for denial under paragraph 1 of this letter. 18. Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representative or employees of any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. This request is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(a). The communications requested are exempt from disclosure as they constitute attorney work product pursuant to CPLR Section 3101. 19. Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of the any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco, 4This request is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(a). The communications requested are exempt from disclosure as they constitute attorney work product pursuant to CPLR Section 3101. 20.Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority with respect to any action or policy of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco, This request is denied. Public Officer's Law Section 87(2)(e)(i) exempts the disclosure of documents that would interfore with law enforcement investigations, Additionally, Public Officer's Law Section 87(2)(\(i) exempts the disclosure of documents that identify confidential sources and information that relate to investigations. Accordingly, because complaints made and/or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority with respect to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradiey Junco contain confidential sources, information and relate to a law enforcement Investigation, the request is denied. 21.Documents mentioning reflecting or relating in any way to the New York State Liquor Authority’s response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any action of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. This request is denied as it is vague and therefore the Authority cannot properly respond. 22, Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, reflect or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York. This request is granted. See pages EWS120- EW129 and EWS131. 23.Documents mentioning, reflecting or relating in any way to the New York State Liquor Authority's response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any action of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. This request is granted, Enclosed are notices of pleadings against New York State wholesalers Winebow and Palm Bay international. See pages EWS 133-EWS135. 24, Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC, The Authority denies this request. Until September 23, 2014 when Empire Wine & Spirits LLC issued a press release regarding their law suit against the Authority, the Authority was not in possession of any emails received by or sent to Chairman Dennis Rosen which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. Any email received or sent by Chairman Rosen after that date which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(9). 25. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. 5The Authority denies this request. Until September 23, 2014 when Empire Wine & Spirits LLC issued a press release regarding their law suit against the Authority, the Authority was not in possession of any emails received by or sent to Chairman Dennis Rosen which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. Any email received or sent by Chairman Rosen after that date which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(9). 26.Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to the sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York, ‘This request is denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87,2(g) as these communications are inter-agency and intra-agency and do not constitute final agency policy or determinations. These communications are for discussion purposes and exempt under the Public Otficers Law so as not to stifle government policy makers. 27. Emails received or sent by Margarita Marsico of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. This request is granted in part. See pages EWS177-EWS273. This request is also denied in part denied pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(a), The excluded communications requested are exempt from disclosure as they constitute attorney work product pursuant to CPLR Section 3101. 28.Emails received or sent by Margarita Marsico of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. This request is redundant of paragraph 27 and the response is the same. 29.Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which contain the term “Commerce Clause”. This request is denied as it vague and overly burdensome for the Authority to search all records and or documents for any mention of the words “Commerce Clause”. 30. Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which relate to the New York State Liquor Authority's powers under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). This request is denied in that the Authority does not possess any documents or memoranda which relate to the Authority's powers pursuant to 9 NYCRR §3.1(n). Any emails or correspondence the Authority may have which is responsive to this request constitute attorney work product and are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officer's Law Section 87.2(a) and CPLR Section 3101. 31.Documents generated or prepared in connection with any Investigation of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco.This requested is denied as all discovery materials for case 88869 have already been provided you pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act and this request is redundant. This constitutes the Authority's response to your request. Sincerely, paper COS” 0 jcquéline P. Flug \__ounse! to the AuthorityDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case #, Docket # Premises Name 172765 -83434-—-2013-8 SUPER SONIDO ELAGUILA INC BRONX Chacess 80 W KINGSBRID NY. 10468. 09/22/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL 121917364031 2011- 11 DALLA FOODCORP. NEWYORK Charwes 3891 BROADWAY NY. 10032 1/13/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 118845879072 -2012-12 M& S694 CORP BROOKLYN Charges 694 ROCKAWAY AVENUE NY 1212 {1/162011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES. 120919761870 2010-20 ASDEESTRAND CORP LONG ISLAND CITY, Charges 4515 QUEENS BLVD. NY L104 11/11/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 116891962187 2010-21 MASTILINC. FAR ROCKAWAY Charges 38 01 BEACH CHANNEL DR NY t1691 (08/25/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES IMPROPER CONDUCT 1248873 94508-—«2014- 26 CRSAR VERAS POLANCO, BROOKLYN, Changes 442 BLEECKER STREET NY 237 09/41/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES. 101554655752 -2010-28 JBM CATERERS OF FIVE TOWNS INC ‘VALLEY STREAM Charges 1000 ROSEDALE RD NY 11581 06/22/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 96/22/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 113965675402 -2012-50 4685 LOUNGE INC. RIVERDALE, Charges 4685 MANHATTAN COLLEGE PKWY NY 10471 09/17/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 112102716003 -2009-72 «JOSE R BATISTA BROOKLYN, Chores 2959 FULTON STREET. NY 11208 04/07/2004 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTIONANDIVIDUAL 2501699 54279 2009-73 HIDDEN INNINC. SOUTH KORTRIGHT Charges MAIN STREET. NY 13842 11/122008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 214733454280 -2009- 74 LUIS & ANTI ENTERPRISES INC. BEACON Charzes 69 SPRING STREET NY 12508 11/21/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT- BAD CHECK 121739954281 2009-76 AMRAN DELI GROCERY CORP BROOKLYN Charges 725 NOSTRAND AVE NY 11216 i 11/21/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHEC! 213433454282 2009-77474 RTE S2 REST CORP. LAKE CARMEL, Charges 474 ROUTE 82 NY 10512 12102008 IMPROPER CONDUCT- BAD CHECK (72751 54283-2009 78: ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT AND CATERING LL COMMACK OPER CONDUCT- BAD 6230-D JERICHO TURNPIKE NY um: 10/08/2014 ewsivision of Alcoholic Beve: ‘age Control /New York State Liquer Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Case# —__Docket# —_ Premises Name 1179560 S284 2009-79 BLUE HARBOR CAFE INC GREENPORT Charges Mo FRONT ST SUITES NY 1194 11/26/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 121782154285 2009-80 BORI BORI CORP. FLUSHING Changes 4113 150TH STREET 2ND FLOOR NY 11355 12/01/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK WWII4S1 54053 2009-84 MIRLIQUOR INC BROOKLYN Changes 1385 FULTON STREET NY 11216 12/14/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORFORAT! TI 79744 2012-11413 MV CORP BROOKLYN Charges 15 JEFFERSON STREET NY 1206 01/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1223878 62226 2010-114 PLATINUM PLEASURES OF NY INC BRONX Charses 098 LAPAYBTTE AVENUE NY 10474 11/19/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1175807 $4122 2009- 116 DAVID GROCERY CORP BROOKLYN Charges 38 HERZL STREET Ny 11212 10/29/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 2172328 -95202—-2014~ 127497 WASHINGTON AVENUE REALTY CORP ALBANY Changes 497 WASHINGTON AVE NY 12206 OIZL122014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1155685 87152 2013-136 ALTIFF CORP. (OZONE PARK Charges to712 101ST AVENUE NY 11416 1025/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 16514987153 2013- 137 BAVRIDGE CAFE INC BROOKLYN Chass 1550 BAYRIDGE AVE NY 11219 11922012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 2595432 87154 2013-138 IBD ASSOCIATES INC SYRACUSE Charees 770 JAMES ST NY 13203 10/312012 IMPROPER CONDUCT. BAD CHECK 210736387155 2013- 139 T&S CROSSROADS DELIINC COTTERKILL Chanees 1821 LUCAS AVENUE NY 12419 11062012 IMPROPER CONDUCT-BAD CHECK 117650451435. -2010- 153 BRONXTAILS ING BRONX Charies 3229 WESTCHESTER AVE NY toast 07/26/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10193578714 2013-155 ABDOM HASSAN NEW YORK Chagos 880 AMSTERDAM AVENUE NY. 10025 09/19/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 09/23/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/04/2012. IMPROPER CONDUCT 1024668 43703-2010 156 ST MARKS ENTERPRISES INC NEW YORK haa 12 ISTAVENUE NY 10009 10/08/2014 ewsDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Lmproper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial # Case # Docket# Premises Name 120150770134” 2011-197 MAJED R. MALEK BROOKLYN Charges 1256 FLATBUSH AVENUE. NY 11226 09/30/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES. 1171258 79857 2012- 158. FELIX ORTIZ. STATEN ISLAND Charges 487 VANDERBILT AVENUE, NY 10304 12/08/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK, 122662279858 -2012- [59 MARMARIS RESTAURANT INC. BROOKLYN Charges 3081 EMMONS AVE NY 11238 12/08/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1169729 79859 —.2012- 160 E-CHIBAN SUSHI INC. RIDGEWOOD Charges 6647 PRESH POND RD NY f385 12/1011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1209602 70007-2011 161 CLEMENTE FOOD CORP BROOKLYN Charges 1146 BUSHWICK AVE NY [a1 12/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1120522 70013 2011-163. EL RANCHERO TEXANO BAR & NIGHTCLUB BROOKLYN. Changes 758 STH AVENUB NY 11232 (01/02/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT. ate 113625187002 2013-163 ACOSTA FOOD CORP. BROOKLYN Charges, 323 LINDEN ST NY 11237 (09/16/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 126654595286 2014-181 LARUBIA RESTAURANT INC NEW YORK, Charzes 3517 BROADWAY NY 10031 01/19/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1265216 95258 -2014- 182 RIO NEW YORK INC NEW YORK, Charges. 4892 BROADWAY NY 10034 10/27/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1246961 * 95260 2014-183 BARTOW FOOD MART INC BRONX, . Charges, 1945 BARTOW AVENUE NY 10469 10/27/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1254650 95262 2014-184 COOPER DELI GROCERY CORP GLENDALE Charges 64 55 COOPER AVE NY 11385 11/24/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 127033595264 2014-185 PITKINBEST DELI CORP BROOKLYN Charges 1742 PITKIN AVE NY 212 01/122014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1190826 $4213 2009- 190-2496 SEVENTH AVENUE DELI LTD. NEWYORK, Charges 2496 7H AVE STORE #5 NY 10030 {1/0/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1/01/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1253138 77931 2012-198 8421 DELL INC BROOKLYN Charges. 8421 7TH AVE NY Ht228 08/05/20 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/08/2014 ewsDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/0/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case# Docket # Premises Name (257332 98495-2014. 19994. ST NICHOLAS DELLINC. NEW YORK Charges 94 STNICHOLAS PL. NY 10032 11/17/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 119935052953 2009-200 MI RANCHO DELI CORP. FREEPORT Charges 558 MAIN ST NY 11520 10/12/2008 (MPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO t1iss08 79404 2012-201 CASH & CARRY INC. STATEN ISLAND Charges 1828 HYLAN BOULEVARD. NY_ 10305 [22011 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1207122 79403—«2012-203 | HAYAN PAN BROOKLYN Charges 1708 BATH AVE, NY tai 08/04/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 211893581943 2013-204 M&S LIQUOR INC GLOVERSVILLE Charges 95 FULTON STREET NY. 12078 03/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1247276 95191-2014. 207 HANSON DRY INC BROOKLYN Charges 925 FULTON ST NY 11238 09/12/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 111993879399 «2012-207 AHMEDAAL ‘BROOKLYN, Charges 131 TOMPKINS AVENUE NY. 11206 (0/26/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES L716 S449 2009-207 FAWZ1NAJIALMAKRAI NEWYORK Charges 4380 BROADWAY NY 10033 06/17/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 124727695191 2014-207. HANSON DRY INC BROOKLYN Charges 925 FULTON ST NY 11238 12/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (09/12/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 115706561505 2010- 209 EXCLUSIVE LOUNGE & GRILL INC ‘CAMBRIA HEIGHTS fharzes 223 20 LINDEN BLVD. NY 11412 _1025/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT, 1183544 -79402—-2012- 209 NRMASSOCIATES INC RICHMOND HILL. Charges 11401 ATLANTIC AVENUE NY 11418. 0/04/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 2153520 924432014. 212 ARIANOS P& PING MAHOPAC, Charnes 18 CLARK PLACE NY 10540 08/09/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 118086354448 2009-218 ADALJISA DELI GROCERY CORP NEW YORK, Charges 152 8 MITH STREET NY 10029 (96/17/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 06/17/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 1258895 79919 -2012- 292 EXPRESS (363 DELI INC BROOKLYN Chawes 1363 BROADWAY NY 11221 12/30/2017 IMPROPER CONDUC’ 10/08/2014 ewssDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case# Docket _ Premises Name (045787 S014 2009-234 SKIPRICHLTD WESTHAMPTON BEACI Charges 239 257 MONTAUK HIGHWAY NY 11978 ae IMPROPER CONDUCT 104757751478 2009-235. SITNSIPINC SMITHTOWN, Charges 296 MAPLE AVENUE NY 11787 (08/17/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1198704 70178 «2011-243 MBA DELI GROCERY CORP NEW YORK Charges (08 E 125TH STREET NY. to03s (03/02/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 03/02/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1228011 701802011244 MHIM GROCERY STORE INC NEWYORK, Charges 4151 BROADWAY NY. 10033 03/02/20 10 IMPROPER CONDUCT 120522469298 2011-249 GREEN DELIINC TAMAICA Charges 185 20 HILLSIDE AVE, NY 432. 10/29/2010 TMPROPER CONDUCT 117984969279 2011-252 KINGSTON DELI & GROCERY INC JAMAICA Charges (72.41 HILLSIDE AVENUE NY 1432 10/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT {60891 70177-2011. 254 ABREU 401 CORP NEW YORK Charges AUST NICHOLAS TERRACE NY. (0027 ‘ 02/17/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1050347 68733.~—«2011-257 KALYAN CORP YONKERS Charwes 466 RIVERDALE AVENUE, NY W705 10/19/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/19/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1164412 S4117 2009-258 SALEHH KHATARI . RICHMOND HILL Charges 13502 LIBERTY AVENUE, NY tt419 (09/30/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT (09/30/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 120294354119 2009-259 WILSON FARMERS SUPERMARKET CORP BROOKLYN. Charges 107 WILSON AVENUE NY 11237, 10/07/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 101058054118 2009-260 SONGS GOURMET INC BROOKLYN Changes (39 ST NICHOLAS AVENUE, NY 11237 10/02/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 120554754120 2009-261 STOP (4) MJ CORP. BROOKLYN, Chanes 2552 PITKIN AVE, NY 11208 10/09/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1259912 87383—2013- 261 ALEX CANDY 4 INC BRONX Charges 4270 KATONAH AVE NY. 10470 40/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/0R/2014 ews,ion of Alcohol Beverage Controt /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial # —Case# Docket _ Premises Name 1205224 S421 2009-262 GREEN DELI INC JAMAICA Charses 185 20 HILLSIDE AVE NY 11432 [6/14/2008 {MPROPER CONDUCT 1258350 87381-2013. 264 PRABHU GROCERY STORE INC BROOKLYN Charges 197 86TH ST NY 12M 11/20/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES: (230749 95628 «2014-266 SPA CASTLE INC COLLEGE POINT Charges ISL 10 LITHAVENUE NY 11356 1112972013 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 3149695 957763014270 ZEESHAN MUSHTAQ ROCHESTER Charges 1865 CLIPFORD AVE NY. 14609 [2/18/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 314351295777 «2014-271 NOIR BUFFALO INC BUFFALO Charges 88 W CHIPPEWA ST NY (4202 12/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK. 118615395764 2014-272 DELIN GROCERY WITHA DIFFERENCE INC BRONX Charges 1724 BUSSING AVENUE, NY 10466, 02/04/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 123922169273 2011-279 MOAZEB MINI MART CORP. STATEN ISLAND Charges 506 RICHMOND TERRACE, NY 10301 10/05/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/05/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1158727 64841201 281 NHD CORP PEEKSKILL Charges 925 WASHINGTON STREET NY 10566 (08/18/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTIONINDIVIDUAL (08/18/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL, 08/18/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT « CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL, (08/18/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL + 1184886 53321 -2009- 286 ST NICHOLAS JJ DELI GROCERY CORP NEWYORK, Chaewes 598 W L78THST NY 10033 i IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1185049 48705 2009-290 MR 1 STOP GROCERY INC BROOKLYN Charges 868 THOMAS $ BOYLAND STREET. NY H2I2 02/26/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 1211949 62869 2010-297 GOLDEN CARRIAGE CORP FLUSHING Changes 3527 FARRINGTON ST. NY 1354 09/25/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT (212438 62871” 2010-298‘ FIVE ZONE GUYS LLC ‘ASTORIA, Charges 28 43 STEINWAY STREET NY IH03 09/25/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1209999 6287}—-2010- 300 ATLANTIC EAST GROUPING ASTORIA Char 28 08 STEINWAY ST NY 1103 09/35/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT toosnots ewsision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Seriat# Case# Docket # Premises Name 118195262864 2010-301. MEXICANA BAKERY CAFE CORP JACKSON HGTS Charges 85 08 ROOSEVELT AVE NY 1372 (08/20/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1039674 62872—-2010- 302 LAND DOWN UNDER INC, THE “ASTORIA Charges 25 67 STEINWAY ST NY 11103 09/25/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 9/25/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 119945362854 2010- 308 FLUSHING XYz, INC FLUSHING 136 17 4IST AVE 2ND FLOOR NY 11355 09/09/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 116782380303. -2012- 308 FOOD FOR PEOPLE INC BROOKLYN. Charges 174 SMITH STREET. NY {1201 12/29/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 119945362854 2010-308 FLUSHING XYZ, INC FLUSHING: Charges 136 17 4ISTAVE 2ND FLOOR NY 11355 (09/09/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 121923162862 _—_-2010- 309 TROPICOSO BAR-GRILL NO. 1! CORP CORONA Charges HL 10 ROOSEVELT AVENUE NY 11368 08/21/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 122806680304 2012-309 KING'S BAR CAFE INC BROOKLYN Charges 5918 FORT HAMILTON PARKWAY. NY ‘11219 01/03/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1040298 62861_—2010- 310 CYPRIANA RESTAURANT INC ELMHURST Changes 7900 QUEENS BLVD NY 11373 (08/23/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. [20783962855 2010- 312. LUCKY PLACE INC. FLUSHING Chores 42.24 COLLEGE POINT BLVD BSMT NY, 11355 (09/10/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. : : 7 118779762860 —-2010- 317 JJDS RESTAURANT CORP FLUSHING Charaes 49 14 41ST AVENUE, NY 11384 (08/27/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1188220 62856 2010-319 INDIGOLIN INC FLUSHING Charges 42.26 COLLEGE POINT BLVD 2ND F NY 11355 (09/10/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 3005600 88702 «2014-333 HEARTHSTONE MANOR INC DEPEW Charges 333 DICK RD. NY 14043 (06/25/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL 1173366 61326 2010-33415 RPT VARICK CORP, NEW YORK, Chames 150 VARICK STREET NY. 10013 03/17/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 112862961317 2010-336 | FMC DELICORP. RIDGEWOOD ty 675 SENECA AVENUE NY 11385 02/03/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/08/2014 ews?Diy: sion of Aleoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 1/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case# Docket # Premises Name 118956348681 2009-337 4149 BROADWAY GROCERY CORP NEW YORK, arges 4149 BROADWAY NY 10033, 03/08/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 118637161318 2010-337 M& WDELI GROCERY CORP. BROOKLYN, Charges 1920 NOSTRAND AVENUE, NY 11226 02/10/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 2008214 79642-2013 M0 MURPHYS PARK INN INC “OREENWOOD LAKE harass 85 WINDMERE AVE, NY. 10925 12/22/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1232440 70365. -2011- 364 ANTHONYLUKELLC NEW YORK Charges 247 W30TH ST NY 10001 01/23/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 14377 @2414 2010-365 ANA CANDY GROCERY CORP BRONX Charges 1497 WESTCHESTER AVENUE NY 0472 07/22/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1160391 62410—-2010- 369 MORALES DELI & GROCERY CORP BROOKLYN Charges 2006 BATH AVENUE NY tata (07/15/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. N24415 54077 2009-370 ALABAMA BEACH DELI INC LONG BEACH Charges 884 W BEACH STREET NY S61 12/16/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1192778 48968 2009-376 LUCKY STERLING STOP 2 CORP BROOKLYN. Charges 224 TOMPKINS AVENUE NY 11216 02/04/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT Hie 1207019 95872—-2014-377__ OPTIMO CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP INC RIDGEWOOD NY 11385 Chaes 66 93 FRESH POND ROAD 01/30/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 01/30/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 126960895265 -2014-383._ ARENALOUNGE LLC RICHMOND HILL Charges 8925 130TH ST NY 1M8 01/23/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1167201 705Si_—-2011-392_ YAO MING ZHENG BROOKLYN. Charnes 6220 11TH AVE NY 11219 10/28/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES: 117549262409 —2010- 392 NAHAR ENTERPRISE INC BROOKLYN tees 1702 B 16TH STREET NY 11229 07/09/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1256348 922012014393 602 WEST 137TH DELI CORP. NEW YORK Charges 3377 BROADWAY NY 10031 (91/09/2013 [MPROPER CONDUCT. 01/17/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 01/30/2013 {MPROPER CONDUCT. (01/30/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 01/17!2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT tona2014 ewsDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Seriat# Case __Docket# _ Premises Name 1256348 922012014 393-602 WEST 137TH DELI CORP NEWYORK Charges 3377 BROADWAY NY 10031 01/172013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 01/30/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (01/09/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (01/09/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 312892253565 2009-401 BURGAS WATERWORKS ING NIAGARA FALLS wares 6004 BUPFALO AVE, NY {304 (01/01/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 01/01/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT (01/01/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1216489 70537—2011- 404 BILLY DELI CORP BROOKLYN Chases 3202 MERMAID AVE NY 11224 (08/04/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1149358 549252009. 405. FOUNDATION RESTAURANT & LOUNGE INC BROOKLYN Charges 1254 FLATBUSH AVE NY 11226 12/12/2008 {MPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 119086054927 2009-406 SURF & TURF GRILL OF CONEY ISLAND BROOKLYN Charges 1315 SURF AVENUE NY U1224 [2/18/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1213800 $4928 2009-407 DEMAREINC NEW YORK, Charges 181 EAST 78TH STREBT NY 10075 (09/16/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK z 121120654926 2009-408 MARISOL LOPEZ, RIDGEWOOD Charges 792 ONDERDONK AVE NY 11385 12/03/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK, (141248 17095 2009- 412 FAWZIAAL ZAWCRI BROOKLYN Charges + 1811 PIFKINAVE NY 11212 oe 05/06/2004 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1262373 96132. -2014- 417 STARZ BANQUET HALL INC LAURELTON Charges 23136 MERRICK BLY NY 1413 (04/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT {45/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 04/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/0 1/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT. (05/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/0 1/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/09/2012 (MPROPER CONDUCT 04/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/08/2014 ews9Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case# Docket # Premises Name 126237396152 -2014- 417 STARZ BANQUET HALLINC. LAURECTON Charges 23136 MERRICK BLY, NY 1413 (04/0 1/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (05/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (05/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT (04/09/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 04/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT 3107381 $2568 2012-422 DAMAH-VU ENTERTAINMENT INC ROCHESTER Charges U7 LIBERTY POLE WAY NY 14604 (05/12/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL 05/12/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/NDIVIDUAL 01/19/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL 01/19/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTIONANDIVIDUAL. 1215659 70588 2011-430 1283 ROGERS DELI GROCERY INC BROOKLYN, 8 1283 ROGERS AVE, NY 11226 10/27/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 117675558766 2010- 433 COPACABANA BAR & GRILL CORP BRONK Charges 4250 WHITE PLAINS ROAD NY 10466 06/26/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT (06/26/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 58537 $0969 2009. 447 LUCKY ONE GROCERY CORP. NEW YORK, Charges 2546 ADAM CLAYTON POWELL JR BL. NY 10039 {03/08/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 114446454065 2009-458 BAXTER DELI GROCERY INC ELMHURST. hanes 81.20 BAXTER AVENUE, NY 11373 11/03/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 11/03/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 118393754064 2009-459 GARRY TCHERY BROOKLYN. Charzes 765 BAST NEW YORK AVE NY 11203 (04/29/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 120151563132 2010- 460 THE HARLEM SUPPER CLUB INC NEW YORK Charges 454458 W 128TH ST NY 10027 (01/09/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1205833 G3I48 2010-463 TORIBIO HUNTS POINTSPIRITS INC BRONX Charges 840 HUNTS POINT AVENUE NY 10474 01/1472010 IMPROPES 01/14/2010 IMPROPI ou IMPROPER C1 conpuct conpuct UCT 10/08/2014 ewstoDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - bmproper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serlal# Case# Docket # _Premises Name 1255277 80617 -2012- 463 AMIR FOOD MARKET CORP BROOKLYN, Charges 95 27 CHURCH AVE NY 1212 09/17/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 120583363148 2010-463 TORIBIO HUNTS POINT SPIRITS INC BRONX Charges 840 HUNTS POINT AVENUE NY 10474 01/14/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1254486 80651 2012-466 LINCOLN PLACE DELI & GROCERY CORP BROOKLYN Charges, 461 LINCOLN PLACE NY 11238 01/10/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1196282" 62293—-2011- 471 FONG FONG INC NEWYORK Charnes 47 CATHERINE ST NY 10002 10/29/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO. 117123987760 -2013- 499 GUADALUPANA DELI GROCERY CORP NEWYORK Charges 126 & 103RD ST NY. 10029 01/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED. (09/13/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGAR 09/13/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 01/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES (09/13/2012 IMPROPER. CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 01/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 110079362407 2010-504 MUSLEHN HIMED, STATEN ISLAND. Charges 95 WATER STREET NY 10304 (07/02/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 115202170784 2011+ 509433 BUD CORP NEW YORK, Charges 433 EDGECOMBE /88 94 ST}2.FL NY 10032 01/01/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1175062 94966 2014-510 BELLO FOOD & RESTAURANT INC NN MASSAPEQUA Charees 746 748 T48A.N BROADWAY “ONY Tse 11/07/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/12/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 119971196320 2014- 516 MARIAS BISTRO MEXICANO INC BROOKLYN Charges 886 STH AVE NY 11232 02/03/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK. 1235127 96322«-2014- 517 MOO LIFE CORP NEW YORK, Charges 226 W 79TH STREET NY 10024 62/04/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1256173 96323-2014. 548 MCONFORTIINC. SMITHTOWN Charges {BE MAIN ST. NY W787 i 01102/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK. 1042971 63335-—-2010- 323120 BAY STREET CORP ‘STATEN ISLAND Charges i20 BAY STREET NY 10301 12/14/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK Loon /2044 ewsitDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial# Case# Docket # _Premises Name H180574 63334 2010-524 ANTOSITOS LATINOS RESTAURANTCORP NEW YORK Changes 1649 PARK AVE NY 10029 (2/10/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK _ 1179261 633332010 $25. WILDTHYME RESTAURANT LLC SOUTHAMPTON Charges [29 NOYAC ROAD NY 11968. 2/10/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT- BAD CHECK 3117537 63322010 526. LA MARINA SEAFOOD MARKET & GRILLE IN BUFFALO. Charges 1503 HERTEL AVE NY date 2/02/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 118864780686 2012-549 502 NUWAY GROCERY & CANDY INC BROOKLYN hares 502A MYRTLE AVENUE NY 11205 12/01/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT (1910363324 «2010-556 TILTED KILTLLC NEW ROCHELLE Charges 11 13 HUGUENOT ST NY. toRos 03/07/2009 \MPROPER CONDUCT N1BH80 70648-2011 603415 17 NINTHAVENUE NEWYORK Chanss 415 17 9THLAVENUE NY 10001 01/14/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT 2148802 70325-2012. 623. ALIZEH FOOD MARTINC SPRING VALLEY Charges 22/N MAIN ST NY 097 1122/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 213179263182 2012-624 FOUR SEASONS DELI & GROCERIES INC HYDE PARK Charges 495 VIOLET AVENUE NY 12538 01/27/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 1170345 «$8236-—-2013- 624 ABDULKARIM ALSHAWESH BROOKLYN Charzes TAL CONBY ISLAND AVENUE, NY 12g. __12/0772012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 2144709 * 71275 2012-644 1815 COUSINS DELI GROCERY INC "SCHENECTADY Charges [B15 1819 VAN VRANKEN AVENUE NY 12308 ____ 01/0201 IMPROPER CONDUCT 116160093864 2014-676 BRIMART INC. STJAMES Charges 530N COUNTRY ROAD NY 11780. 05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/29/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (05/95/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 05/05/2013 (MPROPER CONDUCT (05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/0572013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/95/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT. (05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT (05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 05/05/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 10/0/2014 ewsi2vision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Seriat# Case# Docket # _ Premises Name 116160093864 2014-676 BRIMART INC STJAMBS Charges 530 N COUNTRY ROAD NY 11780 (0/29/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 115075196850 2014-687 331 WEST SISTSTREBT CORP, NEW YORK Charges 331 WEST SIST STREET NY 10019 03/07/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 300165896852. 2014-688 | ERNIES WINE BAR INC BUFFALO charges 67 W CHIPPEWA ST NY. 14202 03/04/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 124912396853 “2014-689 EASTSIDE GOURMET DELI CORP NEW YORK Charees S3AVENUE B NY 10909 _ 03/04/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 2154993 96854 2014-690 CHILACA FOUR INC HIGHLAND FALLS: Charges 315 MAIN STREET. NY. {0928 02/21/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1016745 $4818 2009-690. TALFORD ENTERPRISES INC HEMPSTEAD. Chorges 251 PULTON AVENUE, NY 11550. oe 01/05/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1016898 96855. 2014-691__ REAL SUCOS BAR & REST INC ISLAND PARK Changes 4409 AUSTIN BLVD. NY 11558 02/18/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK, 2500928 86660 2013-704 KING FERRY INN CORP. KINGS FERRY Charges BT7T NEW YORK 90 NY 13081 11/13/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 11/13/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/INDIVIDUAL 312130581264. 2012-705 CAPEAT MASTEN AND EATON INC. BUFFALO Charges 230 MASTEN AVE, NY 14209 02/01/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK, 16542281265 2012-706 ROYAL INDIA PALACE AND RESTAURANT IN QUEER S Charnes 118-08 ATLANTIC AVENUE NY t4l9 02/10/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 119794863738 2010-708 PBEEMPIRE {1 CORP NEW YORK. snes 635 AMSTERDAM AVENUE NY. too24 __ (01/29/2010 (MPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 122880563739 2010-709 WITTHAYAINC. ‘SOUTHAMPTON Charges 1271 NOYAC RD NY 11968 01/14/2010 [MPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1192399 794002012- 710 FABIO DE JESUS CASTRO JAMAICA Charges 44 12 LAKEWOOD AVENUE, NY 105 UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/06/2911 IMPROPER CONDUC 2131656 88640 2013-712 UNCLE MARTYS INC ‘AVERILL PARK hargee 2020 NY 43 NY 2018 01/14/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD Ch 10/08/2014 EWsi3Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduet 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Serial # Case # —_Docket# _ Premises Name 260452388641 2013-713 METROLOUNGE & CAFE LLC ‘SYRACUSE, Charges 503-505 WESTCOTT ST NY 13210 01/07/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK : 1917639 88642—-2013- 714 SABCONING MASSAPEQUA PARK, Charecs 1010 PARK BLYD NY 11762, 02/07/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1230815 88643-2013. 715 DANIBLI DELI GROCERY INC BRONX Charges 1544 6 174TH STREET NY 0472 12/28/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 123239588644 2013- 716 32 CAFEING NEW YORK hanes ILE 32ND ST LOWER LEVEL, NY 10016 01/25/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1253390 96966-—-2014- 718 JUANTALVARADO. RIDGEWOOD Charges 1683 MADISON ST NY U385 (01/31/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES (04/05/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1196698 63633—-2010-724 DJUMBALA OF NEW YORK INC. BROOKLYN. Charges 1370 RALPH AVENUE NY 11236 (01/19/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT. 01/18/2010 (MPROPER CONDUCT Tota. 71376 2011-734 HERCULES PRODUCTIONS INC NEW YORK, Charge 127 LUDLOW STREET NY. 10002 11/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 12/11/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1272672010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 214346371240 -2011- 736 DUBLIN UNDERGROUND SP INC ALBANY Charwes 90 STATE STREET NY 12207 01/01/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT : : 121191796681 2014-737 SABA QUALITY PLUS DELI INC BRONX Charges 1183 CASTLE HILL AVENUE NY 10462 07/26/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 102413271367 2011-737 RIVINGTON CAFE CORP NEW YORK Changes 123 RIVINGTON STREET NY 10002 01/14/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 160984 54807 2009-759 427 CLINTON INC HEMPSTEAD Chanzes 427 CLINTON STREET NY 11550 07/06/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1138949 63697 2010-741 G& A ENTERTAINMENT CORP PORTCHESTER Changes 451 NORTH MAIN STREET NY 10573 (02/20/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT ie 125889581422 2012- 742 EXPRESS 1363 DELI INC BROOKLYN 1363 BROADWAY NY 11221 nanges (03/06/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES Lomn2014 ewstaDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Seriati# Caso# Docket Premises Name WoRO17 63732 2010- 742—_LITTLE BROWN JUG INC,THE. RICHMOND HILL Charges 12402 JAMAICA AVE, NY 11418 01/14/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1205202 814202012743 MYRTLE MINI MARKET CORP BROOKLYN Charges (534 MYRTLE AVE NY 11237 03/07/2012 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 125519996675 -2014- 752 ROYAL MADRID DELI GROCERY INC BRONX ianses 1591 WATSON AVE NY 10472 (09/27/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES (09/27/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO (25421296660 2014-156 BARCELONA DELI & GROCERY CORP BRONX Charges 1601 WESTCHESTER AVE NY. 10472 10/23/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETT 10/23/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 127209196678 2014-758 BROTHER MINI MARKET CORP. BROOKLYN, Charges 1266 8 37TH ST NY 11210 10/3 1/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/5 1/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 1224176 96683 -2014- 761 W& S DAIRY GROCERY INC BROOKLYN Charees 281 AVENUE O NY 11230 (08/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES. (08/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 1167692 96676-2014. 765 COLOMBO BAGEL & DELICORP STATEN ISLAND Charges 196 BAY ST NY 10301 09/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 09/10/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 1265830 96687 2014-766 472 GROCERY INC BROOKLYN + Chuges 4728 KINGS HWY . NY 11223 7 7 (08/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTIONICORPORATIO (08/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 7984971656 2011-776 KINGSTON DELI & GROCERY INC JAMAICA Charges 172.41 HILLSIDE AVENUE, NY 11432 1212272010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 1231835 96684 2014-778 GTA CONVENIENCE STORE INC BROOKLYN Charges 7108 BAY PKWY NY t204 (08/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT- UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1232035 96680 2014-779 FIVE STAR CONVENIENCE ONE INC NEW YORK Charges 520 3RD AVE, NY W016 (2/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 12/02/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 1249426 96659 2014-780 DREAMLAND DELIANDGROCERYINC _OZONEPARK Charges (04.02 LIBERTY AVENUE NY Udi 10/17/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/17/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES, 10/08/2014 EwstsDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Sevial# Case # Docket # __ Premises Name 1120981 71691-2011 782 URBANO ISIDORO NEWYORK 182 E 109TH STREET NY 10029 11/23/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 1206462 716922011 783.113 NORTH 7TH REST LLC BROOKLYN’ Changes 113 NOTTH STREET NY UIE 12/06/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK 3147019 11693 2011-784 TG ENTERTAINMENT INC. CALEDONIA Charges 3154 STATE ST NY 14423 (02/09/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK. 122945371694 «2011-785 ORCHARD BIA CORP ‘NEW YORK Charges 154 ORCHARD STREET NY. 10002 ‘02/04/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT BAD CHECK 1231100 96989 2014-786 SANTIAGO EXPRESS DELI CORP NEW YORK NY. 0031 Charges 3680 BROADWAY 11/07/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIC 11/0772013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1144856 716952011786 RED MULBERRY LTD. Charges (05 MULBERRY ST (2/1/2011 IMPROPER CONDUCT - BAD CHECK “112745356067 2010-787 __ VICTORY WINE & LIQUORS INC NEWYORK NY. {0013 ‘STATEN ISLAND Charges 1980 VICTORY BLYD. NY 10314 (02/09/2009 IMPROPER CONDUCT 2175973 «93149-2014 788 YASEMIN FUELS INC ‘GLENMONT Chavzes 414 ROUTE OW NY 12077 10/0/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 10/01/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1170357 71639-2011 798 1160 STRAIGHT PATH TRADING CORP W BABYLON . ‘Charnes * 1160 STRAIGHT PATH : NY 11704 05/17/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1225813 716552011. 800 STANLEY QUICK MART INC BROOKLYN, Charges 653 STANLEY AVE NY 11207 123072010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES: 116154371658 2011-803 JAMAICA EXPRESS DELI CORP WOODHAVEN NY t1a24 Chanzes 7701 JAMAICA AVENUE, 12/142010 IMPROPER CONDUCT (2/14/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 116898971657 «2011-804 AJ PRIENDLY GROCERY CORP LONG ISLAND CITY Charnes 2122 36TH AVE NY 1106 12/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 12/15/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1213731 71667-2011 805 JOSE ANTIGUA\ BROOKLYN. Charges 2885 ATLANTIC AVE NY 11207 {1/01/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1/01/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 10/08/2084 EWstsDivision of Alcoholic Beverage Control /New York State Liquor Authority Notice of Pleadings Sent - Improper Conduct 01/01/2009 thru 08/01/2014 Sevial# Case# Docket # 1231786 716902011 806 TEARADHAN CONVENIENT STORE INC NEW YORK Charzss 19 COLUMBIA STREET NY. (0002 {0/12/2010 IMPROPER CONDUCT _ 2153520 96259 «2014-807 ARIANOSP& PINC MAHOPAC Charges 18 CLARK PLACE NY. Tosi 02/10/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT a H1A21S 32531-2010 808 RBBK INC ‘BROOKLYN Charges 271 ADBLPHE STREET NY 11205 ‘08/16/2008 IMPROPER CONDUCT ee (774988620 -2013-810_ S&S PUBINC NEW HYDE PARK Chane 2002 JERICHO TURNPIKE. NY a4 03/01/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 02/22/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT 1246470 96982 2014-611 UNLIMITED DISCOUNTMARKET CORP STATENISLAND Chances 192 PORT RICHMOND AVENUE NY 10302 02/17/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - CONVICTION/CORPORATIO 02/17/2014 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1261583 9S1LL 2014-826 4 BROTHERS GOURMET DELL INC BRONX Charges 4402, WHITE PLAINS RD NY 10470 (09/07/2013 IMPROPER CONDUCT __09/0772013 IMPROPER CONDUCT - UNTAXED CIGARETTES 1185929 52909 2009-827 LAS AMERICAS RESTAURANT INC BRONX Charzes 519 [80TH STREET NY 10457 03/01/2006 IMPROPER CONDUCT i 1150036 —- -sonawoo weave ‘Nouwoero2mo 3109 -L9NONGDvEsOH ova ance eaoxate Ews89STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC REVERAGE CONTROL 40 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 935 Washington Street, Suite 303 ‘Albany, NY [2210-8002 Now York, NY 1002: ‘Butlalo, NY 14203 1N THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE NOTICE OF PLEADING 1210038, KINGS F. 1210038 4£935-2013/Case No. 90044 LIQUORS GALORE INC 1212. AVENUE J BROOKLYN, NY 11230 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, dat pursuant (9 Section 118 ofthe Alcobolie Bevernge Control Lavy you are requitol (o ansver by mail as provided below, or im person with proper photo 1D, x the ollice ofthe Divison of Meoholie Beverage Control, Harlem Center, 317 Lenox Avenuc, “4h Floor, (between 125th & 126th Streets), New York, New York 10027, on 07/12/2013, at 11:00 AM, ia connection with proceedings to ‘cancel oF revoke the above-referenced Ticense, and to plead to che following charges: SEE CHARGES ON SECOND PAGE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WILL BE DUBMED A "NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO FURTHER HEARING WALL BEHELD, PLEASE TAKE PURTHER NOTICE that you may be epresented by counsel, If'yon noed a ranslntr, you must bring one with you at your owa expense PLEASE TAKE: FURTHER NOTICE that you may plead to the charges) by mail instead aby personal appearance provided hata Teter signed hy you or our attorney, setting forth your plex of "Not Gully" or"Ne Contest” is veeived by the Office uf Counsel ofthe Division of Alcoh [Beveraye Contra a he ebuve New York: City adress un ur before ihe pleading date specified above that ths masimumn penaly nay be a revocation sel Frtetue ofthe Bond filed by you, and ora evil " ‘AKE FURTHER NOTH at Ue premises For a period oF to penalty. lnaklltion itdhe Authority revokes the license, the Authority may proseribe the issuanee ott lox years rai he dae of revocation ofthe license. NOTICE: I'you plead aut guilty to the charges) a hearing wil thereat be scheduled at which you may appear PLEASE TARE PURTIE ‘und introduee evidence in your behall wih counsel, produce wilnes PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 ofthe Stale Adinistttive Procedare Act, iaterpretr services shall I mae available to deal peeyos a m0 celarge by the Authoity. Date: o77012013 Lenses name and residenes addvess ZANIMERMAN, AARON DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 1786 KENT-AVE, BROOKLYN, NY 11205 Oofiee oF Counset Licenses Landlord by: Margarita Marsico SIQN & ESTHER PALACCE 317 fanox Avenve, ath Floor 1529 BOTH STREET, BROOKLYN, NY 11230 New York, New York 10027 Notice to Landlords stated bove. inthe event the els (212) 961-8918 disposition uf this case reals ina Revocation of the Fae: (212) 961-8016 Pica. the Authority may impose. xs part ofthe penalty «vo year prohibition against the suance of any aleohalie Certified Mail #1003 2260 0008 S374 4606 Irevernge license a these premises. eWst00TATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOMOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, ‘80 South Swan Albany, NY 12210-8002 Now York, NY 10027 Bulalo, NY 14203 {that an and before 7/1/13, te licensee engaged in eensin conduct, (0 wit: sold and shipped distilled spirits dite to customers Jowstd in the state of Misour in vilation of Missouri's loa and that te forepoing conduct was of st impo sto wareant ‘evueation, cancellation ar suspension of the fesnse ia aceundoe with rule 36,1(n) of the Rules ofthe State Liguoe Authority [9 NYCRR 53.100} 2. That om ane! before 7/113, the licenses engaged io erin conduct, © wit sold and shipped Uitte sists cretly tv customers inthe ‘Sate of Maryland in vilation of the aww ¢ Maryland: and that he foregoing conduet was of such improper nur as o warrant ‘ewication. eaeelition or suspension af the lense in aceordanee with sue 86,1in) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority {9 NYCRR 33.10 1. That on and before 7/1/13, the Heensee engaged in certain conaluct, to wit: sold and shipped dieelly to customers in de sate of (Caltonnia i violation oF ig laws of California; and that the forewoing conduct yas of such improper ane as to warrant revocation, lation or suspension ofthe license in accordames with rule 36.{(u) of the Rutes ofthe vor Authority 9 NYCRR 53.100 1. Mhaton 7/1/13. the liensee engaged in ceria conduct, (o wit: sal and shipped distilled spirits ire:tly to euslomers in ‘iofation ofthe tas of Fess: ad that Une foregoing conduc was of sueh improper nature as (o worant revocation cancelation oF suspension ofthe fcense in aseordanee with rule 36,4€n) ofthe Rules of the Stale Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(n). 5, Mh on and here 7/1/13, te teense enpged in certain conic, (0 wit: sold and shipped dicelly disted rquors to customers in Pennsylvania in violation of the lnws af Peingylvania: and st the Feregoing conduct was of sue proper ature as to warrant rowueation, cancellation or suspension ofthe license in acconlanes with rule 36.{(9) o the Rules of tne Sate Liquar Authority (9 NYCRR SIC) iy Thot on or alte 5/21/13. che ioansee engaged in certun conduc, co wi: sold and shipped distilled liquors co x customer tn Louisiana in violation af « Cease and Desist Onder dated Apri 28.2013; mn tat the foregoing vondact was of such improper nature ws to wareent revocation, cancellation or suspension ofthe license in wecordance with rule 36,1(n} ofthe Rules ofthe State Liquor Autherily [9 NYCRR 53.40 7. ‘Thaton or after 317713, the licensee engaged in certain conduc, lo wit: sold and shipped distiied liquor tow custeme in Lowisiana in violation ofa Cease vnd Desist! Order datod Aprit 28, 2013: and that the foregoing conduet was of such improper nature a to wareant revocation, cancellation or suspension athe Hgense in weeordnce with rule 36.1(n) oF the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR SBD 8. Thaton G/I3/13 the licensee engaged in eetain conduct fo Wit sold and shippol directly distiled spirits toa customer in North CCorolina in violation af North Carolina's aw and a Cease and Desist Orde dated 6/6/13; and that de Foregoing conduct was of suet Jinproper nature ws to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(n) ofthe Rules ofthe Sate Liquor Authority [9 HYCRR 33.100). 9, That on 627/13, the fcansee engaged fn certain conduct. to wit: sok! and shipped distilled spirits divectly to a customer in North CCatofin. in vioition of North Carofinas la aid in violation of @ Cease and Desist Order dated 6/3/13: and thatthe foregoing conduct wis of sich improper nature as wo warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension af he Heense in accordance wih rule 36. (a) of the Ralls of the State Liguae Authority [9 NYCRR 53. (nh 1, That o 6/19/13. the licence engaged in cxsain conduet, to wit-shipped sted spirits dweetly lo eustomer inthe site of Missouri ‘lation of Missouri lav: and tha the Torgoing eonduet was of such improper nature aso warrant revoration, caneclniion oF Suspension oft fcense in ocordince with rule 36. (9) oF the Rules ofthe Sate Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR S3.1(i)., [That on 5224/13, the licensee engaged in eerain vondut, 0 wtshipped distilled spirits direlly to customer in she state af Missouri in violation of Missouri’ lays: and thatthe foregoing, conduct was of such improper nature as to warrant revoeatian cacetation oF suspension of the license in aesordance with rule 36,l(n) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR.53.1(n) 12, That on ond before 7/713, the licensee used the trade ame "The Whiskey Place In." and *The Whiskey Place.com. ia connection svi she licensed business without the permission ofthe Authority ist obtained: ll eause for revocation, eancellation or suspension of the fioense in acconlanee with rule 36, Xp} of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 33.1(p)|. eet, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street. Suite 303 ewsto1STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOUOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Steet, Suite 303 ‘Albany, NY 12210-8002. New York, NY 10027 Baifilo, NY 14203 §N THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE, NOTICE OF PLEADING 2110687, DUTCHESS C 2110687 940-20 14/Case No. 93863, QUENCIE ET INC HALE TIME PLEASI-TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant wy Section L18 ofthe Aleoholie Beverage Control Lave you are requined to answer by mit as provided belo. or in person with prover photo LD, atthe ofice ofthe Divison of Alec Beverage Control, 80 South Swan Steet, Suite 900 Albany. New York 12210-8002, on 5/23/2014, at 11:00 AM, in eonneetion with proceedings to eancel or revoke the above-referenced eens, and to psa to dhe following charges) |. That beginning on or aboot Janvary &, 2013, sn continuing thereter, de licensee engaged in cevtain conduc, ¢9 wit: the teste shipment of baer for honse delivery within he State oF Okiahowns, done so in violation of Oklahoma law and thatthe fore gota co {vas of sch improper nature as fo Warrant revocation, eanellaion or suspension oF the Heense in accordance with rule 36.1¢n) of the los ofthe Stale Liquor Anthorty (9 NYCRR 53.1} 2."That beyinning on or abaut Fary £2013 and continuing, thereafter, the licensee engaged in vertain conduct, to wit the interstate “Shipment of beer for home delivery within the State of Tennessee, dane so in violation of Tennessee law: and tt the foregoing eonvet {vas oF sueh improper nature as ¥o wartantrevotaton, eaneollation oy suspension of the Heense in accordance with rule 36.1(0) of te Rules rhe State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.10} 3."That beginning on or about Janunty 1, 2013 and eootinwing hereafter, the liensce engaged in curtain conduct o wit the fnterstate “Shipment oF beor forme delivery within the State of Wisconsin, done so in violation of Wiseonsin la nl ha! the foregoing conduct tas oF such improper nature ws 4 watrant revoeaton, eancolation ar suspension of dhe liven in accordance with ule 36.1(n) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(0)} 1. That beginning on or about January 1.2013 and eootiouing dereaer, the flensee engaged in certain conduel, to wit the fnterstate Shipment of beer for bone delivery within the State of fad without wn Indiana shipper’s permit, dude wo in violation of Indiana tas ‘nd that dhe foregoing condact was of such improper nature a to warrant revocation, canetllotion ar suspension ofthe license in hecandance with rule 36,t(n) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 33.1(0)]. 5, That beginning on ar about matty 1, 2013 ané continuing thereate, the licensee engaged in eotain comet, a wits the interstate ‘Shipment of heer far hone delivery within the Slate of Maryland without a Meryfand shippee's perm, done so in violation of Marytand Fa anal that the Foregoing conduet wis ot such iniproper nature ws fo warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the Kens in hevordance with rule 36,t(n) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 33.4(0}. 4. thal beginning on or about Janvany 1, 2013 and eontiouing therealer te Heensee engaged iy certain conduc, wit the interstale shipment of eer for hose every vith the State of Maine withaut a Maine shipper's permit, donc 30 in violation of Maine law: and ‘tha the foregoing eonduct was of sch proper autre as Wo waren revocation. cancellation oF suspension of the license in aevordance ‘ith rae 36,1(a) of the Rules ofthe State Liquoe Authority 19 NYCRR 53.1(0)). 7. That beginning on oF shout Ianuary 12013 and eantinuing dheccaer. te licensee engaged in certain conduet, to wit the inlerstne shipnvoit of beer for hone delivery within the State of Virginia without u Virginia shipper’s peut, done so in violation of Virginia ka, fn that the foregoing, conduct was oF sich improper nature as Co warrant revocation, cancellation or suspensivn ofthe license in ‘aeurdance with rule 36,1(0) of the Rules ut the Slate Liquor Authority (9 NYCR 8. "That on August 6 2013, de Hewasos engaged in erin conduct, to wit the i oF beer into the Site of Louisiana ‘without a Louisiana shippers permit cone so in violation af Louisiana fay; and har the foregoing conduet was af such improper nature as {o warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license ip aecordance with rule 36.1(n) of the Rules ofthe Stale Liquu Authority [9 NYCRR 53.10) ‘9-That on August 6, 2013, in viola of subdivision 1 oF section 63 ofthe Aleaholie Beverage Control Law, the licensee sok, delivered ‘or gave away, or permite to be sold, delivered oe glven away, alcoholic beverages to a person or persons actually unde the ae of lventy= LEMED A*NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO FURTHER PLEASE TAKE NOTICE (HAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WALL BE HEARING WILL, BE HELD. PLEASE TAKE PURTHIER NOTICE tht you may be represented by couse, PLEASE-VAKE HURTITER NOTICE tba you my plend io the ehargets} hy mal instead or by persona appearance provided that a ele signed evraSTATE OF NEW YORK. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 80 South Swan Stroet, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street, Suite 303 ‘Albany, NY (2210-8002 New York, NY 10027 Buffalo, NY 14205, by you or your alomey. setting forth your plea of Not Gully" or "No Contest” is reelved by the Olee of Cownsel of he Division af Nlechalie Weeerage Control athe above Albay adress un ur before the pleaing date specified shove. PLBASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE tha the maxinneo penalty may be a revocation and forfeiture ur the Bond fied by you, and ora civil penalty, Ip addition, ifthe Authority evokes the lcci. the Avihority may proscribe the issuance ofa license at the prenises fur a period of 6x0 yes toa the date of revneation ofthe licens lsecutive Onder Number 26, intennatr serviews shall be mae PURSUANT "TO SECTION 301 ofthe State Administrative Procedure Act and uvailabe to licensees. al oo eharge, by the Authority, te Aadinistotive Procedure Act, interpreter services shall he made available lo dea paons, a6 PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 ofthe ng by the Aathoriy Dae: asm6rou4 ‘ivengyss name snd nse DANILLS. ALANM. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL. I KINGWOOD LANE. POUGEK: NY 12601 ttige of Counsel [omee's Jandtord by: Wiliam Ghee KANEWPO LLC ‘80 Souih Swan Steet. Suite 900 TSKINGWOOD LANE, POUGHKEGPSIE. NY 12601 ‘Albany, Now York 12210-8002 Novice to Landlord: As stated above, inthe evett the ele [S18] 474-3114, Fa [318] 02-230 NYCRI 3..¢a. 4. That on UA706/2014, in viltion of subdivision 1 af sation 63 ofthe Alcoholic Beverage Consol Law. the eens so, dived or ‘or given say alee beverages « person or persons cual unde he age of twenty _aave away, or permitted to be sol delves IRD A"NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO FURTHER LEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WILL BE DE HEARING WILL BE HELD, PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you may be represented hy counsel PLEASE-TAKE PURTHER NOTICE that you may plaad to the chargesh by ial instead oF by personal appearance provided that eter signed hy vn oF your attomney, sulting forth your plew af "Not Guilty" or "No Contest” is rseived by Une (flce of Counsel af the Division af Alcohol ‘Beverage Conteal a the shove Albany adress om or beta the phaaing date speciled above. PLFASE: TAKE FURIE NOTICE that the naasinuin penalty muy be a revocation snd foeteeure oF the Bund tiled by you, and or a civit pemity. tn ation itis Awlority nevokes the tices. the Awthorily may prasetie the issvanee of lease athe premisss fra period oF wo $e fn the dale a mevean othe eens ewstoaSTATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany. NY 12210-8002 PURSUANT'N0 SECTION 301 of the Slate Administrative Procsiore Ast available Heensces at no chars, hy the Authority PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 of the Slate Administrative Provedre Act. interpreter services shal he ride walla to charge. By the Authority. {iecnse's name and residence ade DONOVAN. BRIAN 37 NEVINWOOD PLACE, HUNTINGTON SPA, NY 11746 Ligensee's Landlnd ROSSMORE ]OLDING CORPORATION S80 NORTH COUNTRY RD. STIAMES. NY 11780 Notice Landi: As state above in the eva the disposition ofthis ease results i a Revocation of He Ticense due Avthority may impose, as pat ofthe penalty. «40 your probibin agains the issuance of any aleoholie Devore eens a1 these premises BIT Lenox Avenue Now York, NY 10027 535 Washington Sheet, Suile 303 Baffalo, NY 14203 nul Kgweutive Onler Number 26. interpreter servies shall be made H persons. no bats; ostorau.4 DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL Ofte of Cowes by Gince, Wilian 0 Soma San Stoct, Suite 200 Albany. New York 12210-8002 ole )S18) 402-4023, Pas 1918) 492-2301 Contiied Mail # 7012 0470 0000 5007 6764 ewsi0s,STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street, Suite 307 ‘Albany, NY 12210-8002 New York, NY 14203 Buffalo, NY 14203, DINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE. In THR MATTER OF PROGE NOTICE OF PLEADING 3009753, MONE 1, 882 2723-2014/Case No, 93861 MARKETVIBW LIQUOR INC MARKETVIEW LIQUOR 1100 JEFEERSON RD UNIT OLA ROCHESTER, NY 14623 PLEASE'YAKE NOTICE, tat pursuant 0 Section (8 ofthe Aleobolis everuge Control Law you are required to urswur by mal ax provided Ixtow, or in person with proper photo 1D, ath uli of the Divison of Alcoholic Beverage Control, skal Eleerie Tower Hullding, 935 ‘Washington Steet Suite 403, Bullslo, New Yor 14203, on 10/17/2084, a 10:00 AM, i connection with proceedings fo eaneel or revoke the above-referenced licens, and to pea! 10 the flowing ergs): ht nod shipped distilled liquor directly to eastomers reas to warrant “Thal on oF about October 31, 2013 the licensee engaged in certain conduct, located inthe state of Alabama, in violation of Alabau ‘evocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rale36.1(a) oF the Rules ofthe State Liquoe Authority INVERESS.1(a)). 2. Thad on or abuat October 30,2043, the licensee enguged in certain conve, fo wit sold nd shipped distilled liquor directly to customers ‘ocated io the state of Maryland, “of Mayland’ laws: an thatthe foregoing conduct was of sue impruper nature as to warrant ‘evocation, cancelation or suspension of the Higese in accordance with rule 36.1(a) of he Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority PNYCRRSS.1a)f. J. That on or about October 30,2013, the licensee engaged in certain conduct, (o wit suld and hipped distilled liquor diceety to customers iecated in the state of Muryland, invitation of Mirylat’s laws: and thatthe foregoing conduct was of suck improper nature ws Co warrant ‘evocation, cancelation ar suspension of the ivnse bn accordance with rule 36.1() of the Rules of the State Ligaor Authority [BNYCRRSS.1(0) {That on or about October 31, 2013, the tcenses engaged in certain conduct, to wit sold nd sipped distilled liquor directly to customers Tveated in the sate of Maryland in violation of Maryland's awa: and that the foregoing conduct was of such improper mature as to warenot ‘evocatign, cancelation or suspension of the Hesase in accordanco-with rule 36.10) ofthe Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [NVCRIES.1(0). 5, That on or about October 30,2013, loeated inthe state of Missouri (a violation of Missours ls ‘cancelation or suspension of Ue Hisense in accordance wi 3.100 6."That on oF ghout October 30,2013, the Weegsee enguged ia certain conduct, to wi ieply to customers Twente inthe state of Missouri violation of Missouri's lass and hat the fregotag conduct was of such improper nature asco warrant ‘evocution, cancelation de suspension ofthe Veexse in tceardanee with rule 36.(0) ofthe Rules oF the State Liquor Authority HNYCRRSD.1(0 J. That on or about October 30,2013, the licensee enpayed in certain conduct, (0 wit Sold nud shipped dist lquor direetly to customers Toeuted inthe state of North Carolina in viatation of North Cavotaa"s lays! aad thatthe foregoing conduct was of such improper nature as tu warrant revocation, cancelation or suspension ofthe license in necordvace with rule 6,l(a) ofthe Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority IDNYCRRSS-1e). 8. That oa or about October 30,2013, the licensee engaged ini certain conduct, fo wit: sold ad shipped dist bested in the state of North Caroling in violation of North Caralin’s las: nd thal the forogolag conduct was of such impeoper nature a6 Cowareant revocation, cunectiation o- susponsion of We license in accordance with rule 36.4(a) ofthe Rates ofthe State Liquor Avthorty PNYCRRSS.1a)) 5, That ow or ubout October 30,2013, the licensee engaged ia cet focated in tho state of North Carolina in violation of North Carolia’ tas: fo warrant reyucation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36,4(0) ofthe les ofthe State Li PNYCRRS.1¢0, {That on or about October 30,2013, tne Hensee engaged in certain conduct (a wis sold and shipped dstfedIquor directly fe customers Toented In the state of North Carolin, ia violation of Nerdh Carolina's las: and that the foregoing conduct was of such iesproper nature us te warrant revocation, cancelflion or suspension ofthe license i accordance wih rule 36,1(a) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority INYCHRSS.1) 11. That on or ubuut October 30, 2013, the Heensee engage incerta conduct, to wit: sold and shipped dist the state of Nurth Carolina, in violation of North Caraina’s ls: und that te foregoing conduct was of vuck improper mature ws '36.1(a) of tho Rutes ut the State Liquor Authority ine Hewses engage in certain conduc 0 wi: sold and shipped distilled Kiquor directly t customers Thal he foregoing conduct wis of such improper nature a8 fo warraat rate 36.(a) ofthe Rales ofthe State Liquor Authority liquor directly fo customers conduct; to wit: 2014 and shipped distil liquor diretly to eustomers nl tha the forego conduct was aFsuch improper mature as iver Authority iquor direely to eustomers ovate towacrunt revoention, cancellation oe suspension of Oe liense in arcordance with ru [XV CRESS.) ewsias,1N THLE MATTER OF PROCERDINGS TO CANCEL O8 REVOKE 1009753, MONROE 1. B82 NOTICE OF PLEADING 2723-2010Case No. 93861 Page? 12h on oF about October 30, 2013, the leensee engaged in certain conduc fo wit sold and shipped dived liquor sirectl fo customers ocated in the state af Oto, in violation Ohio's fayrs and that the foroyoing conduct was of such improper nature as €o warrant revocation, ncellaion or suspension ofthe license in accordance with le 361(a) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority [INYCRRS3.1(0). That on or aboot Ortaber 30, 2003, the licensee engaged In certain conduc, to wit: sold and shipped distilled liquor directly to customers {acated Sn tne State of Ohio, in violation Ohio's laws: and thatthe foregoing conduct was of such improper nature as (ow ation, ‘ncellation or suspcosion of te license io necordance with rule 36.1(a) ofthe ules of the Slate Liquor Authority INYCRRS3.1(0). {H,That on or about October 3, 2933, the Heese engaged In certain conduct, o wits sokd and sbipped distifed liquor dire located in the state of Oho, in violation Ohio"s tna: and that the Faeyoing eonducl was of such improper nator as tw rccitation or suspasion ofthe cense in wecordance with rule 86.10) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [INYCRRS3.1()L 1s: That ow or about October 3, 2013, the Hicensee engage in certuia conduct, to wit sold and shipped disliled liquor directly 9 customers located fn the state of Oni, in violation Obio' laws: and thatthe foregoing conduct was of such improper nature as (a warrant cevoratio Chacellation or suspension ofthe Heense in seeerdance with rule 3.1(a) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority {9NYCRRS3.1(0). That ow or about October 30, 2013, the licensee engaged In certain conduet, to wit sold aud shipped disiled liquor directly € customers Iecated ia the state of Olio, i violation Ohio's laws and tht the foregoing conduct wis of such improper nature a8 {0 warrant revocation, ‘Stncellation or suspension of the license i wecordance with rule 36.((a) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority INYCRRSS. (0 V7. That on or about October 30, 2013, the licensee enged ia conduct (o wt: sold wd shipped dsilled iquordirectiy to customers {ocated tn the state of Ohio, io violation Oli’ laws: und thatthe foreyoiog conduct was of such improper nature as to warrant sevecation, ‘inceitaion or suspension ofthe license in ueeordance with rule 361(a) ofthe Ruks of the State Liquor Authority ONYCRRSS.1(0) Ta, That ow or buat October 31, 2013, the Wicenses engaged in eersia conduct, to wit sold and shipped distiled liquor directly (9 eustomers {ocated in the state of Obio, in violation Ohio's laws: aad tha he foregoing conduct wa of such improper wature as to warrant revocation, ‘aacellaton or suspension ofthe license in esordance with rule 36.1(a) af the Rus of the tate Liquor Authority (NYCRKSS.1(0)) 19, Phat ou ov bout October 31,2013, the lcensee engaged in certain conduct, to wit sold und shipped distilled liq directly to customers Tocated inthe state oF Ohi, tn ylation Oblo's laws: and thatthe foregoing conduct was of such improper natare a to warrant revocation, {Cancellation or smspension ofthe license in sesordance with role 36.1(a) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority [ONY CRISS. I(a). Heit on or about Octaber 31, 2013, the ieensee engaged in certain conduct, to wits sold and shipped distil quar directly to eastomers Tecated in the state af Ohio, in violation Ohio Inwss and that the foregolng conduct was of smeh improper nature as fo warrant revocation, ‘cancellation or suspension ofthe license in accordance with rule 361(a) af the Rus of the State Liquor Authority [9NYCRRS3.1(n)-3. ‘hat on or about September 22011, in vnlaion of subulivision 3-6 of sccton {02 of the Alcoholic Beverage Coatrol Law, the ieasee jursbared andlor received aleobolie beverages for resale fom a peeson uot duly licensed to sell vane tor resale seat an or about October 30, 2013, the licensee engaged in certain conduct, fo wit: sold and shipped distBed quar directly to customers Jocated in the sate of Pennsylvania, in violstion Penaaylvania’s laws: and (hat the Foreglng conduct was of such improper mature us 10 jponsinn ofthe license ia accordance with eule 6.1(n) ofthe Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority warrant revocation, caneetaton or AVCRRSS.1(9) Se That on ov about October M2013, the licensee engaged in cortan conduc, fo wit: sold and shipped distilled liquor directly to customers Tocated in the state af Penosylvania, in violation PonnsyWvanla’s laws: und tha the foregoing conduc was of sueh improper nature as co tnarraut revocation, cancellation ve suspension af the lcense io uccordance with rate 361(a) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [ONVCRRSS.1(0)- {3 Tat on ur nbeut October 30, 2013, the Reensee engaged in certain conduct to wit: sok! nnd ablppe iste liquor direct to customers Toeated fa the slate of Penasytvanin, i violation Ponnsyivana’s laws and hat the foregoing conduct was of such improper nuure ns £0 tegreant revocations cancellation or suspension of the license fa accordance wilh rae 36.1(0) ofthe Rules of the Stata Liquor Authority PPAVCRRSS.1¢m). ‘| 7 fe ‘Rahat on or tbeut Oetober 30, 2013 the Hsensoe eagaged in certula conduct, t0 wit: sold nn shipped dstiled Hiquor dicestly to customers Tocated ia thu state of Pemasytvania, in violation Pennsylvania's laws: and that the foregoing conduct was of such improper nature ns to ‘evacution, cancellation oF suspensin of the license fa accorduuce with eule 36.4(n) ofthe Rules of the State L1yuor Authority DAYCRRSS.1)|. J5That om or ubeut October 30, 2013, te ceases eagayed in certain coaduet, to wit: yld and shipped distied liquor directly to customers Tocated inthe state of Pennsytvaia, invitation Pennsylvasla's las: and thut the foregoing conduct was of such improper nature ato {on or suspensivo ofthe license ia accorduuce with rule 96.1(0) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority INYCRRSS.1(mf. bo That on oF about October 3, 2013, the licensee cagugud in corain conduct, fo wit sold and shipped titles tquor directly fo customers Ioeated fa te state of Pennaylvania, in viohntiva Pennsylvania's laws: and that the foregoing conduct was of such improper nature uy to vrarraat revocation, cancellation oF suspension of the license in aceardance with rule 36.1(n) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority PPAYERRSS.1(a} : PEN hat on oF beat October 30,2013, the Heensee engaged in certain condat, (0 wt: sold and shipped uisiied liquor directly to customers Tocated la the state of Pennsylvania violalion PennsyWania's rns: an {hat the foregoing conduct was of such improper ature v8 to warrant tevoestion, cancellation or suspension of the Heeasein accordance wih rule 36,1(a) ofthe Kules of the State Liqaor Authority NYCRRSS.1U0)). Se Phat on or aut October 30,2013, the Hicensse eaguye in certain coniduch to wit: sold and shipped Uislled liquor directly to customers {vested in the state of Pennsylvania violation Pennsylvania's laws: and thatthe foregoing cuyduet was of such improper mature as wvarrant revocation, chnetlinon of suspension ofthe Heense iw accordance wih rule 3é.1(a) atthe Rutes of the tate Liquor Authority (9NVCRRSS.1(8) ews107IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE 3009753, MONROE L 882, NOTICE OF PLEADING 2723 2088/Case No, 93861 Page 29,-Thut on oF about October 31, 2015, th icemse engaged in certain conduct, to wit sol and shipped disiled iquor directly to customers focated in the state of Pennsylvania, in violation Pennsylvania's ls: and that the foregoing conduct was of suck improper nature as (0 ‘varrunt revocation, cancellation or suspension ofthe fice in accordance with fle $6.1(a of the Rules af the State Liquor Authority, PPNYCRRS3.1(0)h 50, That on ov abcut October 3, 2013, the Heensceengnged in certain conduct, o wi: sold und shippel distilled iquor directly to customers acted inthe state of Peansylvania, iw violation Pennsylvania's Ins: and that the foregving conduct was of such Improper nature (0 wratvant revuention, eanctlation o suspension of the ieente in accordance with rae 36.1(0) of the Rutes ofthe State Liquor Authority INYCRESS.1(0)1 Staton ov abut October 3, 2013 the Heensee engaged in esrtain conduct, o wit sold and shipped dstiled tiquor direct to customers iocated inthe sate ef Penmsy!vunin, in volaion Pesmaylvaain's laws and thatthe tbregolng conduct was of such improper mature x8 to tnarrant revocation, cancellation or suspeasin ofthe ivense ia accordance with rule St(a) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, IINVCRRSS.100). Je That on oF about October 31, 2013, the Hoensee engaged in certain conduct, to wit: sokd nnd shipped ulstiled iquor directly to customers located ia the state of Pennsylvania, in violation Peamsytvania’s laws: and that the foregoing conduct yas of such improper mature as to ‘warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension ofthe Hicense in accordance with rule $6.2(n) af the Rules of the State Liquor Avihority IONVCRRSS. 16) {MED A "NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO FURTHER HEARING PLEASK-FAKE NOVICE THAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WIL. ‘WILL BE MELD. PLEASICTAKE FURTHER NOCTCE that you may be reprseaed by counsel PLEASE ‘TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you may plead (o the ehurge(s) by mail instead of by personal appearance provid! tat eter signed by you or your attorney, sting forth your plea of "Not Guilty" or "No Contest ig receive by the Utee {of Counse oF th Division of Afeohole Beverage Control atthe ubuye Buta aes on er before dhe plemling date specified above, PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE thal the mini penalty lay be a revocation and forfeiture ofthe ond Med by you, gd oF vl penalty. In aokiion if the Authority evokes te Tesnse, the Authority nay proseribe the issuance of ecnve at the premises for a peril oF wo years fom {he date ulrevocation of he licens. PLEASH'TAKE FURTHER NOTICE: U'you pad not pully to the cargos) a esring will hereafter be seheuted at whic you may appear ith counsel, produce witness, and introduce evigenee in yur befall ate Administrative Procedure As, interpret services sll be made avilable to dea persons, a no charg, PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 of thes by the duty. Dae: 10672010 Lisensce's natac mn ssidenee address PALMIERI, MICHAEL J 7 . DIVISION OF ALCOHOMC BEVERAGE CONTROL 21 OAK MANOR LANE, PIPTSFORD, NY 14534 Ofte of Counsel y ugynsee’s Land by faine Gallager Faq, 4E, BO TENIUETTA Litt : POHOX 981592, CLEVELAND, OH 44053 ult, New York 14203 ‘view Land As ta ove, in de event he Tek [18] 474-3114 Options 4-23 Aispostion of this caw resus ina Revocation ofthe ax, (716) 247-3075 license, the Avthorty may ianpase, 2s part ofthe penalty. aio year probiiton gat the Issuance of any alcohol Teverige Howse a these premises, CCntfed Mat #7012 0470 0001 4108 7048STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL HO South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street, Suite 303 Alluny, NY 12210-8002 New York, NY 10027 Bullalo, NY 14203 {N THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE, NOTICE OF PLEADING 2137544, ALBANY 1. 2137544 1998-2014/Case No. 88869 EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS LLC PIRE WINE & LIQUOR 1840 CENTRAL AVE ALBANY, NY (2205 PLEASE VAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to Section 118 of the Alzobolie Beverage Control Law you are required Wo ansier by ols provided below. or in person sith proper photo 1D, nthe office ofthe Division oF Alcoholic Reverage Control, Harlem Cs 4th Bor, (between (25th & 126th Sirectsh New York, New York 10027. on 09/03/2014, ot 1:00 AM in comnectinn with proceedings to ‘anced or revoke the above-referenced license, and to pled tothe following charges): S17 Lenox Avenue, SEE CHARGES ON SECOND PAGE PLEASE TAKE NOTH HEARING WILL BE E THAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WILL BE DEEMED A "NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO FURTH LD, i FURTHER NOTICE that you may be represented by counsel, L'you need a tenslator, you must bring one with you al your own PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE: hy you or your aorney, set Beverage Consol at the tat you ay plead o the eharge(s} by mal instead aby personal appeanunes provided that fetter signed onl your plea uf "Not Guill" oe "No Contest is rssived by the Olliee of Counse! ofthe Division of Aleaiic New York City adios on or bere te pleading date spesiticd above, PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the maximum penalty may be a revocation and Forfeiture of te Bond ed by you. and or a evil penilty, In aliion, iCtke Aathorty evokes the license, the Authority may proseribe the issuance of a iesase al the presses fora period of wo seats from the date of revueation uf the Hieense PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE: If you pload no gully to dhe eae), a hearing wild ‘vith counsel. produce witnesses, and introduce evidence in your bebal sealer e scheduled at whieh you may appear PURSUANT TO St availabe to nse TION 301 of the State Administrative Peacodure Act andl Bxveutive Order Number 2 al no charge, by the Authority . Date: 0801/2014 Interpreter services shal be mae Livens JUNCO. BRADL address vA DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL. SWIFT RD. VOORIKESVILLE, NY P2186 . Omtee of Coons Licensees Landlord by: Margarita Marsico MALI. PROPERTHES INC 317 Lenox Avenue, th Floor 651 MADISON AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10021 New York, Now York (0027 Notice to Landon: As tated above, iw the event the Tel: (212)961-8318 \isposition ofthis ease results in a Revoeation of the Fax: (212) 961-8316 Ticcnse, dhe Authority may impase, as part of the penalty 11 two year prohibition against the isuance of ay wleoloie Centitied Mail # 7042 3460 0000 7462.4327 heverage Hesnse at tee premises ewst09STATE OF NEW YORK. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street, Suite 303 ‘Albany, NY 12210-8002 Now York, NY (0027 Batlalo, NY 14203 1.-That onan hefore OK/OUTHL. the icensee engaged fn wsrain conduc, to wi: sold and shipped wine direlly oa customer in Albans ju violation of Alahama's laos: and thatthe foregoing conduct was of such improper nature as lo yatant revocation, cancelation or suspension of te ieense in accordance with rue 36,1(a) athe Rules of the State Liquor Authority 9 NYCRR 33. 1(0) 2 That on and bone /41/14 the Heense engaged in certain conduct, to wit geld andl shipped! wine directly w a eustome im Avivo: and that he farepoing. eonduet was of such dmpruper nature as fo warrant revocation, caneclation oF suspension af the licens in ‘aceurdance with rule 36, Hn) oF the Rules of the State Liquor Authority 9 NYCRR 53. [em 3. That on und before GSAOL/14. the Hieewsee engaged in certain conde, t9 wit: sold snd shipped! wine diselly 0. customer in Arkansas; ‘nth the Forepoing eonkluet was oF sueh improper nature ws vo warrant yw lation or suspension of the eens in secordance with rule 36.1(19 oF tho Rules ofthe State Liquor Authonity 9 NYCRR 53.L(n {That on and before O8/01/14, the licensee engaged in eostain cont, to wit: sold and shipped wine dieetly toa customer in Deleware: rund tha ihe foreyoing coneluct wus osuch proper nature as to veacrantrevoration, cancelation or suspension ofthe license in sevondanee with rule 36,1(0) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority 19 NYCRR 33.1000}. 5, That on and hefore 08/0 1714. the fiecnsee engaged in eeiain conduct to wit: sold and shipped wine directly a eustomer in Maine: tnd tha the Foregoing conduct yts asuch improper ule as to warrant revocation, caneeation or stipension othe license in eoordance with cue 36,1(0) of the Rules ofthe Sate Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1 (0) 6, That ow and before 05/01) 4. the lieensoe engaged in cevtain conclu t wit sold and shipped wine drcety tow customer in ississippit and thatthe foregoing conduct was of sueh improper aalure as to warrant revocation, eacellation or suspension afte ieense in accordance with rule 36,}(n} of the Rules oF the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.0) 7. Thavon and before DAAN/I4 the liens engage n eriain cant. wit: sold and shipped wine direlty tow customer in Penasyivanin and dat the foregoing comet was a sel impeoper naire as lo warrant revecatiog. cancellation o sepension of the Ficense in accordance with rule 36.1{n) ofthe Rules ofthe State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53. (C0) That on and before 989)1/14. the licensee engaged in cetain conduct wit: ld and shipped wine droctly (ow euslomer in Vermont { ‘and that the Fopegoing eondvel was of sueh improper suture ts fo warrant revocation, cancellation of suspension of the license in ‘accordance with rule 6.1) ofthe Rules of the State Liga Authority 19 NYCRK 53. em} 9, 'That on und before NSMZTA. te licensee engaged in estan conduct, to wit; sold and shipped! wine dirty to aeustomer in Ohio it violation of Auaa’s Hys: and the Foregoing conduct was of such improper nature as 1 warrant revocation, caneeation or Suspension ofthe lichse in econlance with rule 36.1(n) ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRE 53. Hah To Thaton nd before OSMU1/14. the lense engaged in eerain conduct, to wit shipped wine directly toa cusomer in Louisiana: and That the foregoing eonduet vas oF such improper nalure as 9 warantrevoeaton, canectlaion or suspension of the Heese in aecontance ‘vith rute 46, Kn} of the Rules of the State Liguor Auahorty {9 NYCRR 53.1)] 11, That en and before O3V017U4 the Fieensee engaged in certain conchet to wit shipped wine ditety to a customer the lorepoing conduct was of steh improper nati 4 to warrant revocation, caneellation oF suspension ofthe license in aeeordanee with fle 36.1(n) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53. (a) 1, That on and before 08/01/14, the licensee engaged in certain eandue, (0 wit: sipped wine dtwtly fom eustomer in California and tha the foregoing conduet was of such inprone# natures to waren revacation, cuncellaion er suspension ofthe liens fn weserdance with rule 36,10n) of the Rules ofthe State Liquor Authosty [9 NYCRR 33.1(0)} 15. Thal un and before O8AOI/14 the lence ennged in celain code, wo wit: hipped wine diretly Wa customér in Georgia; and that . the oregoing, conduct was of ach improper nature as 1 wareunt revocation, cancellation of suspension ofthe license in aeconance with rule 36.1(a) of the Rates ofthe State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.10 14, Thal an and before OR/1/ 4, the licensve engged In certain conduct, to wt shipped wine diet to a castomer in ins: and tha ti foregoinyseonduet was of such improper nature as warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension ofthe licens in eecordance with rile 36.4(a) ofthe Rates of the Stace Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(0)], 15, That on and before 0/01/14 the Licensee engaged in vrtain conduct to wit shipped vine diretly to a eustomer in Washington: and ‘tthe foregoing conduct wns oF such improper nature as to warrant revocation, eanoelation or suspension of thelist i aoeordance With rule 36,1(o) of the Rakes ofthe State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.1(a) 16, That on and belore 08/01/14, the licensee engaged in certain condue,6o wi: shipped wine diet to a customer in ‘nl that the foregoing conduct was of Such impeoper nature us to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension ofthe fcc ‘sccortanee with eule 361m} ofthe Rules othe Stae Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 33.100). Virginia and that ewsi10STATE OF NEW YORK: LIQUOR AUHORITY Application of the Alcoholic Beverage DECLARATORY Control Law to Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 RULING. 2014-01059 Preliminary Statement Section 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle B) provides that any person may request that the Authority issue a declaratory ruling on the application of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, or the Rules of the Authority, to any person, property or state of facts. By letter dated February 21, 2014, a request was submitted by Dini Rao, on behalf of Lot 18, a package store in Mahopac, New York. Ms. Rao requests a declaratory ruling as to whether the operation of an Internet wine club co-branded with a marketing company violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Statement of Facts Lot 18 operates a website for their brick and mortar package store. Listed on their website is.their wine club called “Tasting Room.” Members of the Tasting, Room wine club receive a tasting kit from Lot 18 containing several small bottles of various wines. Customers are asked to taste cach wine and report their tikes and dislikes to Lot 18, Based on this information Lot 18 creates “a wine profile” for cach customer and cach customer then receives shipments of wine suited for their wine profile, All orders for the ‘Tasting Room club are received via the website and reviewed and accepted (or rejected) at the Lot 18 package store in Mahopac, NY uring store hours. Lot 18 employees then send orders electronically to a public warehouse in Wurtsboro, NY. Lot 18 keeps inventory in the public warehouse permitted to We Ship for both their package store and Internet sales. We Ship revives directions from [ot 18 and then takes the wine from the Lot 18 inventory ewsittand boxes the wine accordingly. ‘the wine is then picked up for delivery by a common carrier and delivered dircetly to the New York customer. ‘The Tasting Room wine club as described above and these specific operations were presented to the Members and approved by the Board on January 14, 2014 when the Full Board approved Lot 18°s package store application. Additionally, when reviewing and approving the package store application the Board reviewed Lot 18's use of non-licensed third party marketing companies. ‘The Board approved Lot 18°s use of marketing companies such as Google, which Lot 18 pays on a per click basis, ‘The Board also approved the use of marketing companies that are paid based on the number of custonicrs they obtain for Lot 8. Such marketing companies included Geist Media and Commission Junction, Lot 18 reported all third party marketing companies which they utilize, All are paid flat fees, No marketing company receives a percentage of the sales of alcoholic beverages. Lot 18 now asks the Board if it is permissible to co-brand this wine club with a non-licensed marketing partner. Specifically, Lot 18 asks if itis permissible to co-brand the wine club with Forbes, and title the club Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18. + out in Ms. Rao’s letter, the co-branded wine club would operate in the same manner as the Tasting Room wine club with the following exceptions: (1) the wine club would be called “Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18”; and (2) Forbes woutd nt, online, or through other means. circulate advertisements for the wine club in Applicable Law Section 100.1 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states that no person. Shall sell alcoholic beverages in New York without obtaining the appropriate license, Section 105.14 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law prohibits liquor ‘om: (1) operating on Sundays before noon and after 9 p.m.; (2) operating store ewst2between midnight and 8 a.m. on any day; (3) operating on Christmas and; (4) selling alcoholic beverages when the store is closed to the public. ion 105.15 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law requires all liquor $ lo maintain adequate books and records at the licensed location, stot SLA Rule § 99.2 prohibits retailers from engaging in any deceptive or misleading advertising Section {11 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states that a license *... shall not be transferable fo any other person or to any other premises... it shall be available only to the person therein specified ....” Issues Presented Does the co-branding of the wine elub with Forbes, and marketing by Forbes violate the ABCL? Determination of the Board When examining Intemet sales involving product being shipped directly to New York customers there ure some basic questions that must first be addressed. ABCL $100 requires all those sclling alcoholic beverages in New York to hold the appropriate license. ‘Therefore, the Board must first ask Who may. sell wine shipped directly to New York customers. Only New York licensed package stores or wineries with direct shipping permits may sell and ship wine directly to New York customers. Lot 18 holds a New York package store license and operates a bona fide package store; therefore, they may legally engage in direct sales and shipments to New York customers. to sell alcoholic beverages is Next, pursuant to ABCL §111, a licens applicable to only the specific location licensed and the specific person license Accordingly, sales may only be made from the licensed premise by the licensee or cmployecs oF the licensee. All Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 orders are received, reviewed and accepted (or rejected) by Lot 18 employees at the licensed prem ewstt3Kinally, ABCL $105.14 also governs the times during which sales of alcoholic beverages may take place. ‘The hours for the [Lot 18 store comply with ABCL §105.14. Forbes Wine Club by Lott8’s sales occur only during the store's operating hours in Mahopac, NY and all records are maintained at the licensed location pur ntto ABCL § 105.15 With these basic questions answered, the Board must now examine the more complex issues of the co-branding and marketing agreement between Lot 18 and Forbes. When reviewing the use of non-licensed third party marketers by retailers the Board carefully examines the relationship, written agreements and ations of cach party to ensure that the licensce retains control of the sale of all alcoholic beverages and that the licensce receives the profits (rom the sales. In order to make this deiermination, the Board refers to the standard established in Declaratory Ruling 2013-01006A regarding ShipCompliant. Pursuant to 2013- 01006A, the Board must examine: (1) The role’of the retail licensee, (2) The role of the non-licensed marketing company (3)'the compensation to the non-licensed marketing company, The role of Lot 18 in the Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18. A review of the business mode! from start to finish shows that Lot 18 retains full control over the retail sale of the wine, Lot 18 has sole diseretion over the wine sold via the wine élub. Ail wine comes ftom Lot 18’s inventory. It is wine selected by Lot 18, purchased from New York State licensed wholesalers, and paid for by Lot 18 prior to the customer’s purchase. Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 does not operate on a just-in-time basis. Lot 18 has invested in inventory for this wine club and therefore assumes risk. Additionally, the price of the wine is set by Lot 18. ‘There is no consultation with, or recommendations lrom, Forbes concerning wine selection or price or any other facet of the wine club, ‘The role of Forbes is limited to marketing. ewsti‘All orders for the wine club are reviewed and reecived by Lot 18 employces at the licensed premises. All directions to We Ship, the fulfillment company, come from Lot 18 employees. All payments for wine club purchases are made direetly to Lot 18. Credit card information is received and processed with deposits made directly into the bank account of Lot 18. Payments are made by Lot 18 to We Ship for packaging services and payments are made by Lot 18 to the common carviers used for delivery. With the exception of actually packaging the boxes of wine and cs actively exceute all aspects of the sale delivering them, Lot 18 employe: 2. ‘The role of Forbes. ‘orbes provided the Authority with the contract to be executed with Lot 18 and appeared before the ull Board to answer questions, All responses and the contract show that Fobres? involvement in the wine club is twolald. Fitst, Forbes its trade name, and sccond, Forbes markets the wine ‘orbes as follows: co-brands the wine club wil club. ‘The contract specilically enumerates the services of 1, [Forbes] will market Wine Club through agreed-upon tactics using online and offline distribution methods. 2. [Forbes] does not and shall not influence the selection or the pricing of the wines offered by the Wine Club. ions answered by both Forbes and Lot Based upon this contract and the qu 18, the Board finds that Forbes plays no role in the retail sale of the wine. More plainly stated, it cannot be argued that Forbes is selling wine, ‘As for the co-branding of the wine club, this is also addressed in the contract between Lot 18 and Forbes, When reviewing the use of the Forbes trademark it is of great importance to the Board that the agreement for trademark use is directly between Lot 18 and Forbes and not through a third party. By this direct agreement s of cach party, and the agreed upon consideration, are clear and the responsibilit unequivocal ewsitsAs for the actual usage of the Forbes trademark, all webpages and materials clearly label the wine club as Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18. Every portion of the website states that Lot 18, a New York retailer in Mahopac, NY, is selling the wine, A customer docs not have to look for the fine print for this information because the name Lot 18, and references (o the brick and mortar store, appear throughout every portion of the website. ‘There is no confusion regarding whether ‘or not this wine club is operated by Lot 18. ‘(he Board finds that this website complies with SILA Rule §99.2 and cannot reasonably be viewed as deceptive 3.7 Compensation to Forbes. The Board notes that all monies paid by wine club customers go directly into an account fully controlled by Lot 18. With the exception of the credit card galeway and processor, there is no third party interception of funds between the customer and retailer Forbes receives compensation from Lot 18 for both the use of its trademark and the marketing services provided. ‘The marketing services provided by Forbes do not differ from the services provided by other marketing companies already used by Lot 18 and approved in their package store application. Pursuant to their agreement, Forbes will attempt to market the company via their media company and they will be paid by Lot 18 for every customer they obtain for the club. ‘They will be paid a flat foc for the use of the trade name and for each customer enrolled : in the club. Atno point docs Forbes receive any percentage of the sales from wine “Lheie compensation is based on the number of customers, not the value of a customer's purchase. Because Forbes is paid merely for the services provided, they cannot reasonably be viewed as receiving a portion of the wine sales by Lot ik. Pursuant to the above analysis, which comports with Declaratory Ruling 2013-01006A, the Board finds that Lot 18 retains total control of every retail function and utilizes Forbes as a trademark partner and marketing company. Accordingly, the Morbes Wine Club by Lot 18 model as presented by Ms. Rao docs are reminded that this ruling is limited to the not violate the ABCL. Licen ewsit6Jered approval for any other facts sot forth herein. “This ruling should not be consi proposal which deviates, in any respect, from the representations as set forth above. The forgoing Declaratory Ruling was approved by the Members of the Authority ata Hull Board meeting held on May 6, 2014 Jacqueline Held Sceretary to the Authority ewstt7SURIES 1967 BULLETIN $427 JULY 6, 1967 STATE OP NEW YORK LIQUOR AUTHORITY ‘ALL PACKAGE STORE LICENSEES GIFTS OF LIQUOR BY WIRE OR MATL, PARTICIPATION OF PACKAGE STORE LICENSEES. sunsec: It has ‘come to the attention of the Authority that some of the package store Licensees axé members of un organization, or organizations, who deal with gifts of liquor by wire or wail. The wail or telegraph service relates to package store Licensees receiving and writing orders in the State of New York, to be filled by other liquor dealers, either in the State of New York or in other States. It also relates to acceptance of orders, by - wail or telegraph, from liquor stores in other states, or in the State of New York, for delivery by package store Licensees in New York State. Ir is the opinion of the Authority that Licensees are violating one or more of the following sections of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law if engaging in such servic Section 63 (4): ‘lo Hcensee under this section shall be engaged in any other business on the Licensed premises." Section 100 (1): "No person shall manufacture for sale or sell at vholesale or retail uny alcoholic beverage within che state without obtaining che appropriate license therefor required by this chapter," Section 111: "A license issued to any person; pursuant to Chapter one hundred and eighty of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three or this chapter, for any Licensed premises shall riot be transferable to any other person or to any other premises or co aay other part of the building containing the licensed premises except in the discretion of the authority. It shall be available only to the person therein specified, and only for the premises licensed and no other except if authorized by the authority..." It is also the Authority's opinion that it is a violation of the following in the event licensees accepted an order on behalf of another package store Licensee in the State of New Yor! Section 105 (16): "No retail Licenses to sell’ Liquors and/or wines for off- premises consumption shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any premises vhere Liquors, wines or beer are manufactured or sold at wholesale or any other premises where liquor or wine is sold at retail for off-premises consumption, by stock owership, interlocking dizectors, moregage or Lien on any personal or real property oF by any other means. Continued involvement of licensees in this type of an operation will reeult in dis- ciplinary proceedings and may jeopardize the license of such package store owner. STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY As Hr tQES, D, S. HOSTETTER Chairean ewsi18ona roe tenis ca ing ene ted Srey lg ene ums auf Ti Re etn suelo este a soe ocean wo ‘Senn sees rr se te haha ta ngewe ee Repent Pear ewsti9soubtte Oetober 14. 2015 Page 1 of 2 Botile Select sau otilyseleetaeui 530 North Country Ra St. James, NY 11780 ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES To Whom it Concerns: ‘On August 6, 2013, Enforcement Agents with the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (*ATC") utilized a Vist gift eard to purchase « 1202 bottle of Brooklyn Brown Ale for $1.99 with an additional shipping cost of $22.77 for a total of $24.76 via wy byideselyercons, onder no.:100214. On August 13, 2013, the 12oz bottle of Brooklya Brown Ale was received at the from desk of the Louisiana State Police Headquarters at 7919 Independence Boulevard, Baton Rouge, 1. 70808 Irom “530 North Country Road, St. James. NY 11780," La, B.S, 26:359 (attached) prohibits the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages into the stare of Louisiana other than through @ Louisiana licensed alcoholic beverage wholesale dealer Further. R.S. 26:359(F) provides that “Auy retailer of alcoholic beverages who violates any, provision of this Section shall be subject to a civil pedalty in the amount of twentyofive dhousand dollars. Bottle Select is hereby ordered to immediately cease (he sale and delivery of aleoholie hevernges into the stute of Louisiana and shail immediately indicate on Itottlesete that shipments into Loniviuna are prohibited. Pursuant 10 RS, 26:359(G), this correspondence shall be submitted to both the Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax, and Trade Bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury and the New York State Liquor Authority. ‘This correspondence is also being submitted fo the Deparunent of Justice and the Lonisiana Department of Revenue. Louis ewsi20Bonby Jinedat Poy Heber State of Louisiana orem seer Department of Revenue October 11, 2013 Page | of 2 ‘Markelview Liquor 1100 Jefferson Road Rochester, NY 14623 ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIS' ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Fo Whom it Concerns, On August 6, 2013, Enforcement Agents with the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and ‘Tobacco Control ATC”) utilized a Visa gift card to purchase a 750m! bottle of Torada Tequila for $9.99- with an additional shipping cost of $16.00 for a total of $25.99 via www.markeiviewliquor.com. ATC then received an email from Marketview Liquor with Onder No:91 543, On August 13, 2013, the 750m! bottle of Torada Tequila was received at the Louisiana Stare Police Headquarters, 7919 Independence Boulevard, Baton Rouge. LA 70806 from “Miarketview Liquor, 1100 Jefferson Road Rochester. NY 4623." La, R.S, 26:359 (attached) prohibits the divect shipment of alcoholic beverages into the state of Louisiana other than through a Louisiana licensed aleoholic beverage wholesale dealer. Further. R.S. 26:359(F) provides that “Amy retailer of alcoholic beverages who violates any provision of this Section shall he subject fo a civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five Marketview Liquor is hereby ordered (o immediately cease the sale and delivery of oholic beverages into the state of Louisiana and shall immediately indiexte on .marketviewliquor.com that shipments into Louisisna are pi w {isan Otis of Akal pn obace Cuno SAS Achy Avex, Sule 405 Pos! OMe Hy 404 » Hao Rog Ln SADE 2281 SHAE» ta (235 92S-AVTS ‘sate huge ewst2tPage 2 of 2 Parsuanl (0 RS. 26:359(G), this correspondence shall he submitted to both the Alcohol. Vobaeco, Tax. and ‘Trude Bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury and the New York State Liquor Authority. “This correspondence is also being submitted to the Louisiana Department of Justice and the Louisiana Department of Revenue, egal Counsel, You may direct any questions or requests for additional information to A’ Iessien Strns, at (225) 925-4607 or by email at Jessica.starns{dla.g0v. Sincerely / a [> Veoy Hebert, Commissioner Louisiana Office of Alcohol and ‘Tobacco Control Attachment(s) ce: feanique Greene, Commissionet New York State Liquor Authority 80 8. Swan Street, 9” Floor Albany, NY 12210 Alcohol and Tobacco ax and Trade Bureau United States Department of Treasury 1310 G Street NW Box 12 Washington, DC 20005 James Caldwell, Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice P.O, Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 tim Barfield, Secretary Louisinnn Department of Revenue P.O. Box 201 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Lins Office oF Aleta sad 585 Arete Avewae, Suite 305+ Post ice Dh (6401 (2254 928-4011 Foe 2 waitku 98 ewsia293863 Fins Barsietd Vebby finetel fava Prag Hebert State of Louisiana Consis ee Department of Revenve Oetober 14. 2013, Halftime Beverage 2290 South Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Vo Whom it Converns: On August 6, 2013, Enforcement Agents with the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Contro] (“ATC”) utilized a Visa pift card to purchase a 12 02. bottle of Kentucky Ale for 2.29 plus taxes nt $2.22 with an additional shipping cost of $24.99. The order number was 112969 Tor a total of $24.76 via www halllimebeverage.com, order no.:100214, On August 13, 2013 she package including the Kentucky Ale and « bottle of Original Sin wats received at the from dlesk of the Louisiana State Police Headquarters at 7919 Independence Boulevard, ‘Baton Rouge, LA-70808. The website shows an address of 2290 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY, 12601" as the address for Halftime Beverage. La, R.S, 26:359 (attached) prohibits the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages into the stute of Louisiana other than through a Louisiana licensed atcaholic beverage wholesale dealer Further, R.S, 26:359(F) provides that “Any retail .4es who violate: ¥ of alcoholic bever provision of thiy Seetion shall be subject ¢o 2 civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five thousand dottars, Halftime Beverage is hereby ordered to immediately cease the sale and delivery of alcoholic beverages into the state of Louisiana und shall immediately indicate on shipments into Louisiana are prohibited, www.halftimebeverage.com th Parstrant to RS. 26:359(G), this correspondence shall be submitted to both the Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax, and ‘Trade Bureau of the United States Department of the ‘Treasury and the New York State Liquor Authority. This correspondence is also being submited to the | ouisiana Department of Justice and the Louisiana Department of Revenue, mee Cato WHT eT 228192565075 NSH Werte: eee ews123You may direct any questions or requests for additional information to ATC Le 5) 925-4607 or by email at Jessicastamnsiga.wov Jessica Stars, at Troy Hebert, Commissioner Louisiana Office of Aleohol and Tobaceo Control Atachment(s) ee: Jeanique Greene, Commissioner New York State Liquor Authority 80.8, Swan Street, 9" Floor Albany, NY 12210 Alcohol and ‘Tobacco ‘Tax and Trade Bureau United States Department of Treasury 1310 G Strect NW Box 12 Washington. DC 20005 James Caldwell. Attomey General Louisiana Department of Justice P.O, Box 94095 Baton Rouge, L.A 70804 Tim Barlield, Secretary Louisiana Departmént of Revenue P.O, Box 201 Baton Rouge, 1A 7082 owkine (ice WF Al aad oc Ca SHS Archives Avent, Site 220 «Post Cli Hs Is « Haton Fo S28) )2ScINTT > Li 2250 5-47 Ssh 76 Page 2 of 2 al Counsel. ews124Bepartment of Commerce lene ironed ‘Bla vee ‘tl ta et April 30, 2013, VI4 CERTHIED MAHL, ARTICLE #71791000164917852338 ‘The Whiskey Place, Inc. dba The Whiskey Place E 1212 Avenue I Brooklyn, NY 11230 RE: Offering for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages to Ohio Consumers Dear The Whiskey Place, Ine.: sre Dhia Division of Liquor Control (“Division”) has been made aware of the offering forsale of intoxicating Liquor to Ohio consumess by The Whiskey Place, Inc, dbe The Whiskesy Ploos As The Whiskey Place, Ine, is not licensed in Onio to sell intoxicating liquor; any sales vould be 'n violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 4303,25, That section states, in part: yy the person’s clerk, agent, or employee shall sale, offer, keep, or possess for sale, furnish or sell, OF solicit the purchase or sale of any beer of intoxicating liquor in this state, or fransbort import, or cause to be iransported ot imported any beer, intoxiening Liquor, or alcohol in or into this state for delivery, use, or sale, untese the perso hs fully complied with this chapter and Chapter 4301. of the Revised Code or is the holder of a permit issued by the division of liquor control and in forve at the time, J No person personally ot by ‘imanufacture, manufacture for Additionally, Ohio Revised Code Section. 4301.58(B) states: No porson, personally or by the person’s clerk, agent, or omployee, who is not the holder of an A, B, C, D, B, F, G, J, or S permit issued by the division, in force ut the Gime, and authorizing the sate of beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol, ot who is ot an agent or employee of the division or the tax commissioner authorized to sell such beer, intoxicating liquor, oF alcohol shall sell, keep, or possess beee, intoxicating Liquor, or aleohol for sale to any persons other than those authorized by Chapters 4301. and 4303. of the Revised Code 10 purchase any beer or intoxicating liquor, or sell any alcohol at retail... . Violation of this prohibition is a criminal offense, 6606 Tsing ons 6146 2360 PO oe A005 Pax ha can ato oyoltsurg, OR 2088-0005 5.4 TYPED 3007500950 ‘An Baual OppontuniyBnploye and ewvie Provide wrcom ohio gov ewsisThe Whiskey Place, Inc. As such, the Division hereby requests that you immediately cease aleoholic beverages to Ohio consumers, Sincerely, Bruce D, Stevenson Superintendent dsat the offering for sale of ewsi26DIVISION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO CONTROL, Lafayotte E. Lacy Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon State Supervisor Govemor Mike Schler Jerry Lee Deputy Supervisor Director, Public Safety April 9, 2013 The Whiskey Place 1212 Aveaue J Brookdlys, NY 11230 Re: Alcoholic Beverage Shipments to Missouri Dear Sir or Madam: The Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) has been notified that The Whiskey Place is possibly selling aad shipping alcoholic beverages directly to Missouri consumers without being properly licensed as a retailer within this state. To qualify for a retail license your business would have to be located within Missout. Since your business is not properly licensed fo make shipments into Missouri, any possible shipments your business made would have been in violation of Section 311.050, RSMo, and must cease immediately. Future shipments in violation of Missouri Law may well result in criminal and/or administrative actions against your business Please contact this office if you have any questions or feel you,received this letter in erro. Sincerely, Lafayette B. Lacy State Supervisor LELsms Ce: Keith Hendrickson, Chief of Enforcement Karen Gaut, Administrative Services Manager 1738 €, Elm, Lower Lovel, Jefferson Cily, MO 65104 P.O. ax 837, Jefferson City, Missourt 65102-0837 Voice 973-751.2964; FAK 573-878-4369 hittin ate.dns.ma.aov ewsi27Fin Sarvielel Fete Rotsky tindat Coun! Covener Troe Hebert State of Louisiana Voisin Department of Revenue April 28, 2013 ‘The Whiskey Phe LLC Wwww.thewhiskeyplace.com 1212 Avenue J Brooklyn, New York, 11280 ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGI to Whom it Concerns: On April 19. 2013. fintorcement Agents with the Louisiana ONee of Alealial anh Pohucoe Contol ATC lized «Vise git eard to purchase 4 750m bottle of Jose Cuervo Tegal for $20.9 with an additional shipping cost of $2007 for a twtal of S405 via sauntheshbskeyplace.com, ATC then received in email from ~The Whiskey Place” sith ‘Confirmation 160019646 and Shippsent # 100015842, Cin April 24. 2013. the 750mad bottle vt Hose Cucrwy Tequila way received at ATC Headquarters in Baton Rouge. La\ tiem “CHO. The Whiskey Place 877-944-6440 Axity Fullllowent, 733 59" Street. Brooklyn, New York 11220" The packaying did not Indien the packaging contain Inbeling to ini: that the cuntents were alcoholic beverayets) tant did wo “Adule Signature Requined” (see seached photos) La, RS, 262359 ¢ + of Lutisigna other than throug Lai Funher, KS. 26:399 provides that “Any ret provision of this Section shall be subject tu a civil penalty jn the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars. «d) peohibits the direct shipment af aleatolie beverages into the st licensed ‘alcoholic beverage wholesule dealer ailer of aleoholic beverages why vi ‘The Whiskey Pla hereby ordered to immed alcoholic beverages into the state of Louisiana and shall immedi ww.then hiskeyplace.com that sl Hels cease the sate and delivery of indiewte on ments jnto Lowisiaga are prohibited, ewsi23‘ursuunt 10 RLS, 26:35). this correspondence shall be submitted wo oth the Aleohol Tobacco. Vax, and Voude Bureau of the Chited States Depactment of dhe Treasury and the New York State Liquor Authority. This correspondence is also being submiteat t the Louisiana Department of Justice and the Loui Sincerely roy Hebvrt. Commissioner Lovisiona Olfice of Alcohol and Tobaeea Consol teachments) ee Jeauique Greene. Commissioner New York State Liquor Authority 808, Sivan Siceet, 9” Floor Albany. NY 12210 Alcohol snd Tobacco Tay and Trade 8 United States Department ot Fresstry 4310 G Street NW Bas 12 Washington, DC 20005, James Caldwell, Anime, General Louisiana Deparment of lustice P.O, Box 94093 Baton Rouge. 1A. 70804 itm Barfield, Secretary Louisiana Department of Revenue P.O’ Boy 201 Baton Rouge, (A 70821 nt Deparunent of Reves ¥Y questions oF requests for additional infrmatiog ty ALC Legal Counsel } 925-4607 or by emu wt Jess ewsi29DIVISION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO CONTROL. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Lafayette E. Lacy Governor State Supervisor Jerry Lee ike Schier Director, Public Safety Deputy Supervisor March 34, 2014 Empire Wine & Liquor 1440 Central Avenue Albany, NY 12205 Re: Alcoholic Beverage Shipments to Missouri Dear Sir or Madam: ‘The Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) has been notified that Bmpire Wine & Liquor is possibly selling and shipping aleoholic beverages directly to Missouri consumers without being properly licensed as a retailer within this state, To qualify for a retail license your business would have to be located within Missouri, Sinee your business is not properly licensed fo make shipments into Missouri, any possible shipments your business made would have been in violation of Section 311.050, RSMo, and must cease immediately. ature shipments in violation of Missouri Law may welf result in criminal and/or administrative actions against your business Please contact this office if you have any questions of feel you received this letter in error, Sincerely, LofeysD E. Lou) Lafayette E, Lacy Stale Supervisor LEL:ns Ce: Keith Hendrickson, Chief of Enforcement Karen Gaut, Administrative Services Manager 1798 &. Elm, Lower Lovel, Jefferson City, MO 65101 P.O, 60x 837, Jofferson City, Missouri 65102-0037 Voioa 873-751-2086; FAX 57345264369 htioutvz.ate dps.mo.aox ewst30Ste of Korth Carolina ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL COMMISSION LIAKGES ©. GARDNER 407 WAL SERVICE CENTER COMMISSION EMBERS: ‘os RALEIGH, NC 27600-4207 JOELL. KEITH MICHAEL ¢, HERRING KEVIN I, GREEN soutasieaTon (919) 779-8331 EENanO FAX (919) 661-9166 May 5, 2014 Empire Wines, LLC Empire Wine,Com 1440 Central Avenue Albany, NY 12205 Re; legal Shipment of Alcoholic Beverages to North Carolina Dear Sir/Madam: North Carolina General Statute §18B-102.1() states: “It is unlawful for any person who is an out-of:state retail or wholesale dealer in the business of selling alcoholic beverages to ship or cause to bo shipped any alcoholic beverage directly to any North Carolina resident who does not hold a valid wholesaler's permit under Article 11 of this Chapter.” “This is e NOTICE OF AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST aay shipments of alcoholic beverages to North Carolina residents. You have 30 days to provide a receipt or otherwise show that applicable North Carolina Stato taxes have been paid. If you do not provide such information, “it shall be presumptive evidence” of yout intent to ship alcoholic beverages to a North Carolina resident who does not hold the proper permits. [NC General Statute §18B-102.10)] ‘A violation of these provisions of North Carolina law is a felony. If you have any questions, please contact me, ‘Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. * Sincerely, K Renee Cowiek K, Renee Cowick Chief Counsel co: Michael C. Herring, Administrator, NC ABC Commission (via email) Lanron Kamhardt, NC Attomey General's Office, Law Enforcement Liaison Section Margarita Marsico, Associate General Counsel, NY State Liquor Authority hnpulaboine gov COPY ewsi3t145 Bast Capitol Avenue Pier, South Dakota. 57501-3185 Depaftment of Phone: 605-773-3311 [R= Fae 605 7TD egulation April 26, 2013 Empire Wine 1440 Central Ave Albany, NY 12205 Re; Alcohol Shipments to South Dakota Consumers ~ Fo Whom It May Coneerm: eee It has come to the attention of the South Dakota Department of Revenue (thé “Depariment") that ‘your establishment may be shipping alcoholic beverages to South Dakota consumers in violation of state law, According (0 information obtained trom hitp:/Avww.empitewine.com/sbipping/, ‘your establishment allows, or doesn’t specifically prohibit, alcohol shipments to South Dakota. Pursuant fo SCL 35-12,-5, iti illegal to sell or ship alcoholic beverages directly to South Dakota residents. The Department advises that you immediately take any and all necessary measures to prevent sales and shipments to South Dakota residents, Should you fail to do so and sales and shipinents occur in the future, you may be committing a Class | misdemeanor, puinishable by up to onc year imprisontnent in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both. Please conduct yourself accordingly. Best regatds, Property and South Dakoyf Departnent of Revenue wineatate sur ewsts2STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOMOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 317 Lenox Avenue '535 Washington Steet, Suite 303 Now York, NY 10027 BulTalo, NY 14203 0 CANCEL OR REVOKE 0 South Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210-8002 INTHE MATTER OF PROCEEDING IC OF PLI Not EADING 1190755, NEW YORK LL 1150755 177-2013/Case No, 83870, 236 W 261N ST NEW YORK, NY 10001 PLEASE TAKE NOFICE, that pursuant co Section 118 ofthe Alcoholic Beverage Control Law you ae requirot to answer by mal a provided below, or in porsan with proper photo (at he orice uf the Division of Aleoholic Beverage Contrely Harlem Center, 317 Lenox Aven, 46a Floor, (betoveen 125ta & 126th Streets), New Yor, New York 10027, on 07/23/2013, a 11:00 AM, in connection with proceedings © ‘eco or revoke above-referenced license, and to plead to the following chargets) jsrbution or resale of |. That on or before tI6/D1/12, in violation oC S1A Rule 65.860) [9 N.Y.C.RAR. 65.8(G)]. the license timed the brand oF fiquor oF win, to wits 2005 Fakeseo Mereiano, without a showing of good eause to the Authority. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE thal you may be represented by counsel. you need a translator, you must bring one with you at your osm expense. to the chargefs) by wal instead of by personal appearance provid tht a eer signed 2 of Couiazl oF he Division of Alcoholic PLEASE CAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you may ple by you or your atomney, setting fart your plea of "Not Gully" or "No Contest” is received by the Of Beverage Conttol atthe ubove New York City address on or beloce the pleading date specified above. PLEASE CAKE FURTHER NOTICE that she maximum penalty say be a revocation an forfeiture of the Bon ied. by you, att ora civil penalty, In adition ine Authority revokes the fiesna the Authority uy proseribe tho issuance ofa license at the premises fora periad of two ‘years rom the dale of revocation ofthe license aor be schulsl at which you may appear 1 you plead ot guilty to the charges), 2 hearing wil des |ASB TAKE FURTHER NOTICI oxiuee evidence in your betul produce witnesses, an ION 301 of the Stale Administrative Procedure Act, interpreter services shall be mad availabe to dea persons a no PURSUANT TO SE ccoarge, by the Authority, . Dale: 071182013 Licensees name and residence adress MORAMARCO, JON ANTHONY BIDE ROCKY KNOLL WAY, SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 DIVISION GF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, Offiee oF Counsat Licensee's Landlord toy: Margarita Marsico CARROLL PLACE LLC 317 Lenox Avenue, 4h Floor 1 D. MONTVALE, NI O76 New Vork. Now York 10027 TNUT RIDG NNolice to Landlord: As slated above, inthe event the disposition a this case esull in a Revocation of the Ticease, dhe Authority may impnse, ws prt of the penty + hvo yea prohibition against the isvance of any wleoholie rye livense a these premises. Tel: (212) 961-8318 Bax: (212) 961-8316 Conifiod Mail ¥ No Certified Mailing Requite ewsta3STATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Steet, Suite 303 Albany, NY 12210-8002 New Youk, NY 10027 Buffalo, NY 14203 suvacsoueensesensiAtontbnetesibsbiaaegendsabantansneaneeagnenoeOsOeaGeet eer eeEEsEN An OnMerENaERESE SSS INTHE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE, NOTICE OF PLEADING 1016051, NASSAU LL. 10654 2423-2014/Case No. 15454 PALM BAY INTERNATIONAL INC 48 HARBOR PARK DRIVE PORT WASHINGTON, NY 11050 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, hat purstant o Section 118 oF the Alcoole Boveroge Control Lew you ar requ sve by mit as provided low, on person with pruper photo ID. athe wis ofthe Division of Alcohol Beverage Conlsol Harlem Center, 317 Lenox Avenue, 40h Foor, (between 125th & (26th Steels, New York, New Vork (0027, oa September 26, 2014, a 11:00 AM in conetion vith ovsdinus ro ees or revoke the above-eteenced license. nd io plead tthe following charge 1.‘That cm or about 0104/11 in violation of paragraph a of subdivision 2 of section 101-b ofthe Aleoliotic Beverage Cont Lav. in connection with a sale fo retailer Finpire Wines & Spits, the licensee discriminated dieely or indineetly in pie, in discounts or time of ‘payinent or in discounts om quantity oF merchandise sold, between one wholesaler and another wholesaler, of between one retailer und ‘another velaiter purchasing liquor o wine bearing the same brand or trade name and of lke age and quality. 2. That on or about 04/21/11 in violation of paragspt a of subuivision 2 oF sotion 101-b of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Lav. in connection with a sale Co rlailer Empire Wines & Spits, Use Hcensee dlserinyiated directly or iniecly in pie. in discounts Fortine ‘of payment ot in discounts on quantity of merchandise soid between one wholesaler and another wholesaler, or betweon one retailer and ‘nother retailer purchasing liquor of wine bearing the samte brand or trade name and of tke age and quality. 53. That on or about 06/25/13, in violation of paragraph «of subiivsion 2 of selfon 101-b ofthe Alcoholic Beverage Contol Lavin ‘eonneetion with thee seperate sles to Warehouse Wines & Spits. the licensee dixeriminated directly or indirectly, in price, in For dine of payinest or in disconnts on quatity of merchandise sol, between one wholesaler aud another wholes, or between one retaike ana another retailer purchasing liquor or wine bearing the same brand or trade mame and of tke age and qual. 4. Thal un or about 009/13 the licensee did sell Aleoholie Beverages without having propery fie prices forthe sume, wo wit: 2012 la Solitaca Pinot Girigo. ia violation of subsection 3(b) of section 1OL-b of the Aleoholie Beverage Control Law, in connection with a ‘aller Bottke Buys ll cause for revocation, cancellation or suspension of te Hieense in aovordance with rule 33.1(2) of the Rules ate Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 33:1(0]. 5. That on or about 06/13/13 the licensee Ui Sell Alcoholic Beverages without having propery filed prices far sane in violation of subsection 3b) of section 101-b of te Alcaholie Bevesnge Control Law to wit: 2012 Il Cane Pinot Grigio, in conestion wth te sale to retailer Rote Blowout Wine & Liquor al eause tor evocation, cantellation or suspension ofthe license in accordance with rule $3.1) ‘ofthe Rules of the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 33.109} 6."That on oF about O/I2/13. the feensee did sell Alcoholic Beverages at ether tn the posted price for same, in vidlation of subsection 3(0) of setion 11-b of the Alcoholic Beverage Coatrol Law, to wit: 2010 Montgras Chardonnay Reserve, in connetion withthe sale 10 retailer Warehouse Wi its, all eause for revoeation, eanellaion or suspension of the lense in wccordance with rule 33.1(9 of the Rules of the Site Liquor Ambority [9 NYCRR 53.10}, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOUR FAILURE TO PLEAD WILL BE DEEMED A "NO CONTEST" PLEA AND NO PURTHIER HEARING WILL BE TIELD, PLEASE YAK FURTHER NOTICE that you may be represented by counsel PLEASE TAKE PURTHER NOTICE that you may plead to the chargeds) by mal instead of by personal appearance provided that 4 fetter signed by you ar your ntomey, set forts your plea of "Not Guilty" ar "No Contest” is recived by the Olee of Counsel ofthe Division of Aleabolic Control atthe above New York City ndeess on or before the pleading dato specified above, led hy you, andor civil PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE thatthe maximvun penalty may be a revocation and forfeiture ofthe Bond period afte. pponalty. In dilion ithe Authority revokes the license, the Authority may praseribe the issuance ofa feense atthe premises fr ‘eats from the date of revacation of the license PLEASE TAKE PURTHER NOTICE: IF you plead no guilty to the chargets) hearing will thereafter be scheduled at which you may appear wih counsel, prudace witnesses, and inode evidenee in your behal PURSUANT TO SECTION 301 ofthe Slate Adiministutive Peveedae Aet an Exeeutive Order Number 26, interpreter services shall be make ‘value to icons a ean hy te hori ewsi34STATE OF NEW YORK DAVISION OF ALCOMOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL '80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 317 Lenox Avenue 535 Washington Street, Suite 303 ‘Albany, NY 12210-8002 New York, NY 10027 Buff, N¥ 14203, Date: 99/10/2014 Licensee's name and residence adds TAUB, MARC D, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 13DEG7IN ST APT RIDE, NEW YORK, NY 10022 Offee of Counsel Licensee's Landlord b Mangala Marsico PALM BAY INTERNATIONAL INC SUT Lenox Avent, th Floor 1 ARBOR PARK DR, PORT WASHINGTON. NY 11050 lew York, New York 10027 the Notice to Landlord: As stated above in the © (212) 961-8318 isposiion ofthis ease reslts vt Revocalion of the Bax: (212) 961-8316 license, the Aatorty may inpose, as par of the penaly, ‘1 b90 year prohibition against the issuance of any alcoholic Ceniied Mail #7012-2920-0000-8980-4721 beverage Heenso at these premises, ewst35[ ce SENNIS ROSEN OREW M. CUOMO -¢Ate oF WeW YoNK NIS RO: ‘meron CUTIVE DEPARTMENT OHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, :SANIQUE GREENE IQUOA AUTHORITY sien DIVISION OF 3 3A August 9, 2013, Beechwood Wine and Liquors 1 Beachwood Road ‘Summit, New Jersey 07901 Dear Beechwood Wine and Liquors: The State Liquor Authority is in receipt of information that you are selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State Section 102, Subdivision 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: "Except as provided in section seventy-nine-¢ of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shall be shipped into the state unless the same shiall be consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shall apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York State and includes importation or distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, or otherwise and irrespective of whether such alcoholic beverages were purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply to any shipment consigned to a New York resident who has personally purchased alcoholic beverages for his personal use while outside tho United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which has shipped as a consignor to himself as consignee. Purchases made outside the United Stated by persons other than the purchaser himsoll, regardiess whether made as his agent, or by his authorization or on his behalf, are deemed ‘not fo have been personally purchased within the meaning ofthis paragraph.t In view of the above, you are directed to immediately cease and desist seiling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. If you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions you may reach me at 212-961-8342. Sincerely, JACQUELINE P. FLUG COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY ce: Navid Bregenzer New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control 140 East Front Street, 5" Floor PO Box 087 Trenton, New Jersey 08625. ewst36ANDREW i. CUOMO. rare ora oN vents ROSEN Sis XECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OMVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL »ZANIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORRY: ee ova gow August 12, 2013 Wine Library 586 Morris Avenue Springfield, Now Jersey 07081 Dear Wine Library: The State Liquor Authority is in receipt of information that you are selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York Slate. Section 102, Subdivisfon 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: “Excopt as provided in section seventy-nine-c of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shall be shipped into the state unless the same shall be consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shall apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York State and includes importation or distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, or otherwise and irrespective of ‘whether such alcoholic beverages were purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply to any shioment consigned to a New York resident who has personally purchased alcoholic beverages for his personal use while outside the United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which has shippod as a consignor to himself as consignee. Purchases made outside the United Stated by parsons other than the purchaser himself, regardless “whether made as his agent, of by his authorization or on his behalf, are’deemed not to have been personally purchased within the meaning of this paragraph.” In view of the above, yous are direoted to immediately cease and desist selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. {f you wish to discuss this matler or have any questions you may reach me at 212-961-8342, Sincorely, JACQUELINE P. FLUG. COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY ce: David Bregenzar New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control 140 East Front Street, 5th Floor PO Box 087 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ewsi377: 44 it DENNIS ROSEN NOREW M. CHOMO sate OF ew 10 sa ‘veo £X€CUTIVE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL sGANIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY ee aw slany gow August 22, 2013 KL Wines 3005 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94061 Dear KL Wines: The State Liquor Authority is in receipt of information that you are selling and shipping. alcoholic beverages into New York State. Section 102, Subdivision 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: “Except as provided in section seventy-nine-c of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shail be shipped into the state unless the same shall bo consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shalt apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York Stale and includes importation or distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, oF otherwise and irrespective of whether such alcoholic beverages wore purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply to any shipment consigned to a New York resident who has personally purchased alcoholic bevorages for his personal se while outside the United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which has shipped as a consignor to himselt as consignee. Purchases mado outside the United Stated by persons other than the purchaser himself, regardless whether made ag his agent, or by his authorization or on his behalf, are deemed riot to have been personally purchased within the meaning of this paragraph.” In view of the above, you are directed to immediately cease and desist selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. If you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions you may reach ine at 212-961-8342. Very truly yours, JACQUELINE P. FLUG COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY : Director Jacob Appelsinith California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 9780 Rosin Court, Suite 260 Sacramento, CA 95834 ewsieall DENNIS ROSEN \OREW M. CUOMO, Fare OF Ma Yon aan covion ECUTIVE OEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, SEAMIQUE GREENE 3TATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY ‘ammsiones ‘or stay. August 26, 2013 Jwines. 2028 Murray Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15217 Dear Jwines: The State Liquor Authority is in receipt of information that you are selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. Section 102, Subdivision 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: “Except as provided in section seventy-nine-c of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shall be shipped into the state unless the same shall be consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shall apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York state and includes importation or distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, of otherwise, and irrespective of whether such alcoholic beverages were purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply to any shipment consigned to a New York resident who has personally purchased alcoholic beverages for his personal use while outside the United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which he has shipped as consignor to himself as consignee. Purchases made outside the United States by persons other than the purchaser himself, regardless whether made as his agent, or by his authorization or on his behalf, are deemed not to have been personally purchased within the meaning of this paragraph.” In view of the above, you are directed to immediately cease and desist selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. f you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions you may reach me at (212) 961-8342. Sincerely JACQUELINE P. FLUG. COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY ce: Col. Francis J. Noonan, Jr., Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police ‘Thomas M. Ballaron, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania State Police eWsta9[) 2a OIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL SBAMIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY omer oars. August 26, 2013 Online Kosher Wine 630 Woodland Avenue Cheltenham, PA 19012 Dear Online Kosher Wine: The State Liquor Authority isin receipt of information that you are selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. Section 102, Subdivision 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: “Except as provided in section seventy-nine-c of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shall be shipped into the state unless the same shall be consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shall apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York state and includes importation of distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, or otherwise, and irrespective of whether such alcoholic beverages were purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shail not apply to any shipment consigned to a New York resident who has personally purchased alcoholic beverages for his personal use white outside the United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which he has shipped as consignor to himself as consignee. Purchases made outside the United States by persons other than the purchaser himself, regardless whether made as his agent, or by his atithorization or on his behalf, are deemed fot to have been personally purchased within the meaning of this paragraph.” In view of the above, you are directed to immediately cease and desist selling and shipping alcoholic Beverages into New York State. ce: I you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions you may reach me at (212) 961-8342. Sincerely JACQUELINE P. FLUG COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY Col. Francis J. Noonan, Jr., Commissioner, Pennsylvania State Police ‘Thomas M. Ballaron, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania State Police ewsi40DREW Mt, CUOMO stare or new Yon DENNIS ROSEN oreo -AECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ‘ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL —EANIQUE. GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, eee vy DIVISION January 2, 2014 Capalbo's Gift Baskets 350 Allwood Road Clifton, New Jersey 07012 Dear Capalbo’s Gift Baskets: The State Liquor Authority is in receipt of information that you are selling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York State. Section 102, Subdivision 1(a), of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states: "Except as provided in section seventy-nine-c of this chapter, no alcoholic beverages shail be shipped into the state unless the same shall be consigned to a person duly licensed hereunder to traffic in alcoholic beverages. This prohibition shall apply to all shipments of alcoholic beverages into New York State and includes importation or distribution for commercial purposes, for personal use, or otherwise and irrespective of whither such alcoholic beverages were purchased within or without the state, provided, however, this prohibition shall not apply to any shipment consigned to a New York resident who has porsonally purchased alcoholic beverages for his personal use while outside the United States for a minimum period of forty-eight consecutive hours and which has shipped as a consignor to himsolf as consignee. Purchases made outside the United Stated by persons other than the purchaser himself, regardless whether made as his agent, or by his authorization or on his behalf, are deemed not to have been personally purchased within the. meaning of this paragraph.” In view of the above, you are directed to immediately cease and desist seling and shipping alcoholic beverages into New York Stato. If you wish to discuss this matter or have any questions you may reach me at 212-961-8342, Very truly yours, JACQUELINE P. FLUG COUNSEL TO THE AUTHORITY co: David Bregenzer New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control 140 East Front Street, 5th Floor PO Box 087 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 ewstatSTATE OF NEW YORK: LIQUOR AUTHORITY Internet Sales Operation OTCLARATORY by Connoisseur incounters Company, Ine. RULING 2014-021481 Preliminary Statement Section 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle B) provides that any person may request that the Authority issue a declaratory ruling on the applicability of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law ("ACL"), or the Rules of the Authority, to any person, property or state of facts. By lotter dated January 28, 2014, a request was submitted by F. foshva Rosenkrans, 3q, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, on behalf of Connoisseur Encounters Co., Inc (‘CEC’), a licensed New York State retailer who does business as ‘The Wine Cellar at Rye Ridge in Rye Brook, New York. Mr, Rosenkranz asks the following five questions on behalf of his client regarding the operation of four branded Internet wine clubs (“clubs”) operated by CEC. 1. Does the ABC Law prohibit CRC, asa licensed retailer, from paying for fulfillment services performed by supplier or distributor outside the State of New York, the cost of whick: is passed along to GRC by a New York-licensed wholesaler? 2. Does the ABC Law prohibit CEC, as a licensed retailer, from working exclusively with a single liconsed wholesaler in connection with its internet sales? 4. Does CECs business relationship with its third-party service provider violate Section 111 or any other provision of the ABC Law? 4. Does the ABC Law prohibit CEC from eqnducting limited activities outside New York? 5, Does the ABC Law prohibit CEC, as a licensed retailer, from operating and maintaining some of its inventory on a “just-in-time” basis, by ordering and receiving products from the wholesaler as they are needed based on customer demand? CHC’s petition is a condition fron the application to remove their license from Carmel, Putnam County to Rye Brook, Westchester County, CEC was the subject of a disciplinary action (case 72996) where the licensee submitted a conditional no contest plea to the charges of Unauthorized Corporate Change; Availing; Aiding and Abetting; and Non Bona Fide, ‘The charges stemmed from the operation of the clubs discussed below. In order to operate a bona fide store, CEC sought the Authority's permission to remove the license from Carmel to Rye Brook. On june §, 2013, the Full Board conditionally granted the removal application. One of the conditions upon which the removal application was Declaratory Ruling August 26, 201% 2014-02148 Page L Ewsta2granted was that CEC, within four months, submit a petition for a declaratory ruling detuiling their Internet sales operations, After two requests for adjournments and one substitution of counsel, CEC submitted this request on January 28, 2014. Statement of Facts The facts developed during the Authority's review of, petition and the Full Board meeting demonstrates that CEC’s petition does not provide an accurate or complete description of the clubs’ operations, As stated in Declaratory Ruling 2013-01006A, when the Members evaluate the arrangements between licensed and unlicensed entities, the ‘Authority will not only consider the relevant written agreements, but will also evaluate the actual, day-to-day functioning of the arrangements. Since September 2013, CEC has operated a bona fide package store in Rye Brook, New York. CEC also operates four clubs which are the subject of the request. ‘The clubs are WS] Wines, Zagat Wine, Virgin Wine and Laithwaite’s Wine, Mr. Rosenkranz states that all four operate within New York State's three tier system, CEC is the retailer for ail four elubs and Lionstone International (“Lionstone’) is the sole wholesaler for each club. Lionstone operates out of Illinois whilé maintaining an empty New York office in Putnam County adjacent to a warehouse permitted to CEC. Additionally, to operate the clubs, CEC utilizes the services of a third party service provider, Direct Wines Inc, Prior to October 2013, Direct Wines Inc. was owned by DW USA Holdings, Inc, the same company that then owned (and still owns} Lionstone, DW USA Holdings, Inc, was then and is still wholly owned by Direct Wines International Limited which is wholly owned by, Direct Wines Holdings Limited. ‘The Laithwaite family owns 100% of Direct Wines Holdings Limited. Prior to October 2013, Direct Wines Inc. obtained trademark rights from Dow Jones & Company for WSJ Wine. Direct Wines Inc. also obtained trademark rights for Zagat Wine. Via their parent company, Direct Wines International Limited, Direct Wines Inc. obtained sublicense rights to Virgin Wine and Laithwaite’s Wine, Although it is not disclosed in CKC’s petition, the Authority learned that as of October 2013, Direct Wines Inc. changed its name to Archway Partnerships ("Archway"), and sold a portion of its business to Maggoch Holdings Limited which took the name Direct Wines Inc. ‘The Authority has been informed that Archway retained the trademark rights for the clubs and Direct Wines Ine. performs the logistics, marketing and operational aspects of the clubs. Archway sublicenses the trademark rights to Direct Wines Inc. ‘These statements were made to the Authority by a Direct Wines Inc, employee and an Archway principal. However, despite requests, the Authority has not recived any documentation which evidences: (1) the sale to Muggoch Holdings Limited; (2) the terms of the sale; or (3) the sublicensing agreement or aperating agreement between Archway and Direct Wines Declaratory Ruling 2014021488 ewstaaOn January 23, 2014 CHC and Direct Wines Inc. executed an “Integrated Technology/Logistics/Marketing, Services Agreement” ("Integrated Agreement”). The Integrated Agreement grants CEC the use of the aforementioned trade names us well as that of "Four Seasons Wine.” ttalso states the services which Direct Wines Inc. will provide for CEC, The services include but are not limited to: (1) Use of the trademarks; (2) Assisting in the design, hosting and maintenance of the clubs’ webpage: (3) Collecting credit card information and other custemer information; (4) Logistics information regarding CHC's deliveries; (5) Assisting with customer invoices and labels; (6) Providing data between CRC and its wholesalers; (7) Providing 1-800 customer service assistance; (8) Suggesting marketing programs; {9) Suggesting all of the wines to be offered; (10)Suggesting prices for all of the wines offered; (11)Providing web, email and social media platforms. ‘As explained to the Authority by GEC, Lionstone, Direct Wines Inc. and Archway representatives, the clubs operate in the following manner. Llonstone and Direct Wines Inc. use a computer system by which Direct Wines Inc, reviews Lionstone’s inventory. inventory is not inventory specific to Lionstone as a New York State wholesaler, but to Lionstone in general as an entity with operations in numerous states, Direct Wines Inc. reviews Lionstone’s national inventory and then makes recommendations to CEC regarding which wines CEC should purchase several months privr to the actual time CEC intends to purchase the wine. Direct Wines Inc. makes recommendations to CEC not only for the New York clubs, but for all seventeen states where CEC aperates the clubs as part of an overall plan to create a uniform national program. Direct Wines Inc. also suggests how CEC should market the wines via the clubs. ‘The recommendations sent by Direct Wines Inc, contain the prices at which Lionstone purchased the wine - a protocol which is contrary to tandard industry practice - but it does not contain the prices which LJonstone will later post in New York via the wholesaler to retailer schedule, CEC President, Matthew Booker, while in his llinois office, reviews these suggestions Submitted by Direct Wines Inc, and "decides" whether or not to adopt them. tt is worth noting that, at no time during the three years that Mr. Booker has reviewed the Direct Wines Inc. suggestions, has he ever rejected a suggestion made by Direct Wines lac. Mr. Booker relays his acceptance to Direct Wines Inc. which, in turn, informs Lionstone of his decision and places a “reservation” for the wines with Lionstone on behalf of Lonstone, in turn, accepts this “reservation,” and at the agreed upon time ensures that the product is price posted in New York State. CLC then purchases the product at the appropriate time, placing email orders with Lionstone in illinois. CEC does not purchase the product prior to offering it for sale via the TSE Declaratory Ruling ‘August 26, 20 2014-02148E Page 3 ewstaaclubs, but places orders on a just-in-time basis. Direct Wines Inc, then provides specific instructions to Lionstone on how the wine should be packaged along with the customer mailing information to be placed on cach package. Lionstone contracts with a company called Exel to provide the actual packaging and labeling of orders®. ‘these services are all performed at Lionstone’s illinois facility. Lionstone (as of the date of CEC’s petition) passes on the cost for these packaging services to CHC by building it into the posted price on the New York wholesaler to retailer schedule. Direct Wines Inc. on behalf of Lionstone arranges and often pays for the products to Be shipped into New York State. ‘The wine is individually packed into a box for each customer and some boxes bear the trade name of the branded wine club, All boxes include ‘an invoice listing CEC as the retailer, ad promotional materials for the clubs and, at times, other alcoholic and non-alcoholic products. All boxes are labeled with the customer's, shipping address and CEC's return address. ‘The boxes arrive via truck at the Lionstone office in Putnam County. ‘They are signed for by a Lionstone employee and then signed for by a CHC employee from the CEC warehouse adjacent to the Lionstone office’ The truck then leaves with the product which is delivered to a common cartier, and the cost of transportation to the common carrier is billed to Direct Wines Inc. Questions presented by CEC 1. Does the ABCL prohibit CEC, as a licensed retailer, from paying for fulfiliment services performed by a supplier or distributor outside the State of New York, the cost of which is passed along to CEC by a New Yorl-licensed wholesaler? First, the Members must address the use of the terms "supplies" and “distributor” used throughout CEC’s petition. CEC uses each of these words to refer to Lionstone. Lionstone is a licensed New York wholesaler. AAs such, the Members will refer to it as a wholesaler. ‘The entity licensed as Lionstone International’ in New York is the same entity operating in Ulinois. ‘They are one corporation” ‘Therefore, the Members find the distinctions and statements made by CEC in their petition te, ‘The petition states: The only inventory CEC has at lis warehouse in Carmol is club returns. Approximately 1,000 cases of such wine ara typicaly at the warehouse. Those wines are then resold via the clubs or the store in Rye Brook. *CeC’s petition only states, "The customer's shipment is packed at a Lionstone facility inilinois” and omits the participation of Exel FThe Authority has been informed by counsel for Lionstone that as of May 2014, his leno langorLlonstone’s| practice but the Authority has not received any documentation ta that point. F the nutherity has again been informed by counsel for Lionstone that as of May 2034, this is no forger the practice but ne docurtentation ta that pot has been provided to the Authority. SCEC's pebivon {page 10} states that the wines are “sold (0 Lionstone in New York and, accordingly asrive at Lionstona’s warehouso faclly in Carmel.” This isincorrect asthe wine is already owned by Lionstone prior to bing price posted and shipped into Now York State. * Lionstone Internationals the DBA of SLI Group, fc. “nt the June 4, 2014 Board Meeting Mr, Rosenkranz conceded this and stated, “Theres no distinction between Lionstone international and Lionstone New York... lonstone Internationa the licensed wholesaler” Declaratory Ruling ‘August 26, 2014 2014-021488, Page + ewsi4sine Cellar buys its wine from Lionstone in its capacity as a New Yorlclicensed wholesaler who in win, obtains the prepackaged product from the Lionstone facilities in Illinois... Lionstone - as a New York wholesaler - does not perform any lutfill ment services? ‘This statement is inaccurate because the wine is not purchased beween two Lionstone corporate entities, ‘rhe wine is all owned by (ionstone, a New York wholesaler who also does business in other states. Lionstone chooses to price post and sell certain wines in New York State while selling the same and different wines in other states, It ls one company and as such itis Lionstone, a New York wholesaler that bas packaging/fulftllment vices performed at their Illinois focation. Although CEC's petition states that Lionstone performs the fulfillment services, counsel for both CEC and. Lionstone later informed the Authority that a company called Exel, not Lionstone, performs the fulfillment services at the Lionstone ilinois facility? ‘Therefore, the appropriate question the Members will address is: Does the ABCL prohibit CEC, a licensed retailer, from paying for fulfillment services performed by.a subcontractor ofa New York wholesaler at the wholesaler’ out of state premises, the cost of which is passed along to CEC? ABCL Section 104.1 (a). ABCL Section 104.1(a) states that no wholesaler shall be engaged in any other business on the licensed premises; this is often referred to as the “Second Business Rule." ‘Though the Lionstone facility in Mlinois is not part of the New York licensed premises, the Board has always held that a New York wholesaler cannot do something out of state that would be impermissible to do at their licensed premises within the state. To hold otherwise would permit New York wholesalers to operate premises outside of the state* and perform services that in state wholesalers could not. It would place wholesalers with out of state facilities at an advantage over wholesalers with facilities in state, and would, therefore, encourage wholesalers to operate facilities outside of the state to circumvent the ABCL. ‘the courts have addressed these issues and held that the laws of the State must apply to each member of each tier equally.” Accordingly, the only business a wholesaler with a premises licensed in New York. State may conduct at the licensed premises is the wholesale sale of alcoholic beverages unless otherwise permitted under ABCL Section 104. Under this plain reading, a " page 18 of Mr. Rosenkrana’s January 28, 2014 Petition (or Declaratory Ruling. Statements maife by Mr, Rosenkrane a the June 4, 2014 Board Meeting, and page 9 of Mr. Rosenkran’s june 13, 2014 letter, "Exel cuntracts directly with Lonstone, CEC’s wholesaler, to provide the aforementioned fulfilment services at ionstone's facilities in finals.” "see amold’s Wine, inc. v. Boyle $71 F.3e 185 and Granholm v. Heald 544 U.S, 460, Declaratory Ruling, August 26, 2014-02 1488 ews146wholesaler may not conduct or subcontract for fulfillment services at their licensed premises. Therefore, the Board finds that a New York wholesaler with their premises out of state is similarly restricted by the Second Business Rule and may not perform or subcontract for the performance of fulfiliment/ packaging services at their premises for their New York sales. ABCL Section 101,1(c} ABCL Section 10L.L(c) prohibits manufacturers and wholesalers from’ making any gift or rendering any service, directly or indirectly, to aay retailer which in the judgment of the Authority may tend to influence such retailer to purchase product from the manufacturer or wholesaler. Pursuant to a 101.1(c) analysis of CEC's question, the Members must examine the relationship between CEC and Lionstone. The clubs operate in thirty-three states. In seventeen of those states CEC operates as the retailer. In New York, Lionstone is the only wholesaler that CEC purchases wine from for sale through the clubs, in New York, Lionstone does not employ solicitors. Lionstone does not list its price postings in Beverage Media, as most New York wholesalers do, Lionstone does not regularly staff its New York office or man the phone fine for their New York phone number. Essentially, in New York, Lionstone does not attempt to do business with any retailer other than CEC. ‘Though evidence has been provided to the Authority to demonstrate that Lionstone ‘will sell product to any retailer who places an order, the number of retailers other than CEC who purchase from Lionstone is de minimus at best.!! ‘The transactions Lionstone engages in with CEC also vary greatly from their transactions with all other New York retailers. CEC places orders with Lionstone by emails sent to Lionstone employees in Illinois, while all other New York retailers must leave ‘messages on an answering machine in Carmel, New York and fax orders w the Carmel office. Per the Liunstone website, Lionstone only accepts “full case orders of a single product," yet CHC regularly purchases one bottle of a product. Per the Lionstone website, all wine is delivered by FedEx or UPS, or must be picked up at Lionstone; however, Lionstone regularly delivers wine tw CEC’s warehouse. Finally, Lionstone’s website lists their accepted methods of payment as “cash, cashier checks or money order," yet Lionstone regularly accepts non-cashier business checks from CEC.-In short, Livistone has one set of practices for CEC, and an entirely different set of practices for all other New York retailers. These accommodations alone constitute impermissible gifts or services in violation of ABCL Section 101.1(¢). ® Documents provided by Llenstone indicate that between November 2009 and Apri 2021 Lionstone sold to only ninuteen othor retailers in Ney York gthor than CEC Declaratory Ruling ‘August 26, 2014 2014-021488, Page 6 ewst7Lionstone shares their inventory information, which includes the price they paid for the inventory, via a computer system with Direct Wines tne. for use by CEC, According to Nicholas Lucea, principal of Lionstone, Direct Wines inc. "reserves" wine for CEC months prior to the praduct being price posted in New York State. Mr. Lucca states that if'an order for that wine is placed by-another retailer prior to CEC’s order, Lionstone will sell it to the other retailer.'? However, the wine reserved for CEC is reserved for CHC to be sold in all seventeen states. When it comes to Livnstone’s sales in New York, Llonstone does. not actually price post a wine until the time they know CEC wishes to sell and market the wine via the clubs. ‘This, coupled with the fact that Llonstone makes no efforts to obtain other New York customers, ensures that the products price posted in New York will always be available lor CEC. Thus, while CEC need have no concerns that other New York retailers might pre-empt them in purchasing the wines they wish to obtain, all other New York retailers have the constant challenge of obtaining the product they desire. rhe day-to-day operations of Lionstone, as a licensed: New York wholesaler, are intended to serve CEC and CEC only. tven the prices posted by Lionstone on the New York wholesale to retail schedule include the cost of packing services for CEC. Lionstone does not offer or provide fulfillment services to any other New York retailer. very price posting, made by Lionstone in New York State is a posting spevifically for CEC. Finally, Lionstone nsuires the products are packaged according to CEC’s specifications before being delivered to CEC. In the judgment of the Members, these actions aggregately influence CEC to purchage wine for sale through the clubs from Lionstone - and Lionstone only. When determining if an action of a wholesaler is a gift or service which directly or indirectly influences a retailer in violation of ABCL Section 101,1(c), the Members ask whether or not the action,is or can be performed by the wholesaler for all retailers, tt is inconceivable that Lionstone would, or could, provide the Following for every New York retaier as it does for CEC: 1) Share its national inventory: é 2} Disclose the prices at which it obtained the inventory; 3) “Reserve” wines months in advance; 4) Price post wines at the times requested; 5) Package wines to each retalter’s specificati 6) Place an office next to each retailer. If Lionstone permitted every retailer to determine when it offered/posted their wines for sale in New York, Lionstone would be turning over one of its essential tasks as a wholesaler to New York retailers. What if the requests of the retailers conflicted? if Lionstone operated In this fashion they would substitute the retailer's business judginent "Tpar,Lucea stated ia an interview that there have been instances where CECin New York wanted to buy @ product and it was already sold to someone ese. Mr Lucca did not provide documentation, but the Authority must ‘anclude that Lionstone sold the product in another state because, as already stated, ionstone’s sales in New York toaayone other than CEC ate de minions. August 26, 2014 Declaratory Rabing Page 7 2014-02148 ewstasfor theirs. As it currently operates, although Lionstone determines what products it will obtain for its inventory, Direet Wines Inc. and CEC, through “reservations,” determine the majority of the products Lianstone will post in New York and when. ‘The Authority permits retailers to express advance interest in products; most frequently the practice is seen régarding limited availability items." However, the vast majority of Lionstone's sales in New York are based on ClC's advance interest via the clubs. Lionstone’s New York price postings are personally tailored to CBC's advance interest. The Members cannot cite any other example of a wholesaler legally providing the customized services to a retailer that Lionstone provides for CEC. For all these services and, wine selection Mr. Rosenkranz called Lionstone “one stop shopping" for CEC. Mr. Rosenkranz, stated that a hypothetical smail restaurant or bar might choose w also shop from one hypothetical wholesaler and find all the wines and spirits they need there. However, that analogy is inaccurate because that hypothetical wholesaler is not providing the retailer with anything other than that which it provides to all retailers. ‘That hypothetical wholesaler does not share their inventory with the retailer. They do not have a special means for receiving their orders to the exclusion of others. The hypothetical wholesaler does not post products at a time the retailer dictates, and they do not ensure that the product is custom packaged for the retailer. In Mr, Rosenkranz’s hypothetical scenario an independent retailer is independently choosing to buy from one wholesaler. What is not hypothetical, and is before the Members, is a situation where the totality of the customized services which Lionstone supplies to CEC, and CEC only, strongly Influences CEC to purchase from Lionstone and Lionstone only. The subcontracting for fulfilment services at the Lionstone facility is part and parcel of those services, and in the opinion of the Members constitutes a gift or service that strongly influences CEC to purchase Lionstone’s product in violation of ABCL Section 104.1(). 2. Noes the ABCL prohibit CEC. asa licensed retailer, from working exclusively with single licensed wholesaler in connection with its Internet sales? ; ‘This question overlaps with the previous question since it requires the Members to examine the relationship between CEC the retailer and Lionstone the wholesaler. As stated above, if a wholesaler does not provide an impermissible gift or service that induces the retailer to purchase from them, then there is no ABCL violation committed when a retailer purchases exclusively from only one wholesaler. However, if, as in the case of CEC and Lionstone, the retailer chooses to exclusively buy from the wholesaler because of, "(cis important to note that CEC’s "reservations" are net genuinely “advance interest” as the termis generally ‘used in tha industry, The term is generally applied to products @ wholesaler has not yet obtained but may obtain So they note the advance Interest of rtaiers in the product prior to obtaining the product in oder to make determination on the amount af product to obtain, CEC’s advance interest reservations are for products Lionstane already owns, statement macle by Mr. Rosenkranz at the June #2014 Board meeting. Declaratory Ruling, ‘August 26, 2014 2014-02148 Page & ewstaaimpermissible gifts and or services provided by the wholesaler, then there is a violation of ABCL Section 101.1(¢). CRC contends that they considered other wholesalers prior to selecting Lionstone as the exclusive wholesaler for the clubs.!® However, the record demonstrates that, in fact, Direct Wines Inc, Lionstone, and DW USA Holdings chose CBC to be the retailer for the clubs, not vice versa. Direct Wines Inc,'6 not CEC, is the signatory to the contracts with Dow Jones & Company, Inc, and Zagat Survey, LLG that created the clubs, When the clubs were created by the then Direct Wines Inc, Direct Wines Inc. was the sibling company to Lionstone. It was always the intention that Direct Wines Inc. would sell Lionstone’s wine via the clubs.”” {is also undisputed that C&C obtained a license in New York to be the retail licensee for the clubs. The purchase of Shermer by CEG" the former retail licensee, teanspived at the instigation of, and under the aegis of, Simon MeMurtrie of Direct Wines Inc, Lionstone and DW USA Holdings. At the time CEC applied for and obtained a New York retail license, it was purely to conduct retail sales of Lienstone wine via the clubs, The record demonstrates that CEC was chosen by Direct Wines inc, Lionstone and DW USA Holdings to employ their companies, to operate the clubs, and to buy wines from Lionstone. Wines Inc. violate ABCL Section 111 or any other provisions of the ABCL? AB jon 411 ABCI, Section 111 states that a ficense shall be available “only to the person therein specified, and only for the premises licensed and no other except if authorized by the authority.” The intent of the statute is to prevent those “ineligible to secure a license from ‘operating a fiquor business.” In disciplinary case 72996, CEC was charged with violating ABCL Section 111 for making thetr license available to the company that, at the time, was operating as Direct Wines Inc, CEG submitted a conditional no contest plea to the charge and other included charges, Accordingly, pursuant to the acceptance of a conditional no contest plea on case 72996, the Members have already held that the relationship that existed between CEC and Direct Wines Inc, on or before fune 1, 2014, violated ABCL. Section 111 It is worth noting that on or before fune 1, 2011, Direct Wines Inc, was owned by DW USA Holdings Inc, which as previously stated, was ultimately owned by the Laithwaite family. On or before June 1, 2014 the Laithwaite family owned wineries (and still owns wineries today), Accordingly, because of this interest in wineries, in 2011, pursuant to the " statements by Mr. Rosenkranz atthe June 4, 2014 Board Mecting. °© This refors to the Direct Wines Inc. which existed prior to the October 2013 sale, “Statements made by Lionstone principal Nicholas Lucca on April 16, 2024, “The Shermer licensees were Rosemary Jack, wife of Lionstone principal Ed Jack, and Alice Lucca, wife of tjonstane pringipal Nicholas Lucca Soe Specially Restaurant Cofp-v. Barty 262 A.D.24 926 (1999) laratory Ruling 2014-021486 ewsisotied house prohibitions contained in ABCI, Section 101.1(a), Direct Wines Ine. would have been ineligible to hold a retail license in New York, ‘Thus, the operations of Direct Wines inc, and CEC permitted an incligible entity to use a rotail license in violation of ABCL Section 11 Land 101.1{a), In order to answer CEC’s question, the Members must review what, if any, changes have occurred in the relationship between CEC and the current Direct Wines Inc. The standard by which the relationship will be reviewed was determined by the Members in doclaratory ruling 2013-01006A regarding ShipCompliant. In the ShipCompliant ruling, the Members set forth guidelines for retailers utilizing third party providers for Internet sales. ‘The guidelines were created based upon a review of the relationships between a third party provider, a retailer, and a wholesaler all utilizing ShipCompliant’s services. ‘The guidelines address, in part, whether a retailer is passive and permits the third party provider to execute retail functions. In the request put forth by ShipCompliant, the Members ruled that the retailer was passive, and the unlicensed third party provider was impermissibly operating a retail license in violation of AUCH, Section 111, When reviewing the relationship between CEC and Direct Wines Inc, the Members note numerous similarities to the relationship between the retailer and the third party provider under ShipCompliant. Both Direct Wines and the third party provider under ShipCompliant: 1) Provide trademark rights to the retailer: 2) Operate and maintain the branded clubs’ websites; 3) Provide all marketing services for the clubs; 4) Provide all customer service for the clubs (Direct Wines Ine. subcontracts for these services); 5) Provide logistical services for the clubs (Direct Wines Ine. subcontracts for these services); 6) Recommend, wines to be sold via the clubs and the selling prices (though both CEC and the retailer under ShipCompliant retained the right to reject any wine recommendation, neither ever did); 7) Only recommend wines from one New York wholesaler, ‘The Members note three significant, but in themselves not enough, changes to the CBC ~ Direct Wines Inc. relationship, made after disciplinary case 72996, which differentiate the CEC ~ Direct Wines Inc. relationship from that of the retaller and third party provider under ShipComptiant. 1) Customer payments now go into a bank account which can only be accessed by CEC. Unde! ompliant the third party service provider had access to the account, Ship ‘August 26, 2014 Declaratory Ruling Page 10 2014-02148 ewstsi2) Direct Wines Inc. is now paid a flat fee based upon the services provided pursuant to the Integrated Services Agreement, Under ShipCompliant the third party service provider received a flat fee for every bottle sold. 3) Since the submission of the petition for a declaratory ruling, CEC has reworded and redesigned the clubs’ New York websites to more fully disclose that the wine is sold by CEG, a retail store in Rye Brook. Under ShipCompliant the retailer was not easily identified on the club's website. In addition, while the Members note that CEC has opened and operates a brick and mortar store in Rye Brook, the operations, purchasing, pricing and marketing of the brick and mortar store are completely separcite from their club sales. ‘The opening of the brick and mortar store did not alter the relationship between CEG and Direct Wines Ine; {t did not alter the clubs’ operations, ‘The brick and mortar store simply permitted CEC to cure their prior violation of SLA Rule 53.1(d) for which they were prosecuted. In ShipCompliant, the retailer was a pre-existing, bona fide licensee. tronically, CU attempts to distinguish its operation by noting that the retailer in ShipCompliant did not know where the wholesaler’s warehouse was, whereas CEC states that they know exactly where the Lionstone office in New York is. Indeed, they do because it is purposefully adjacent to their Carmel, New York facility, which is part of the impermissible gifts and services violations tliscussed above. C¥Calso attempts to distinguish the two operations by stating that CEC’s President, Matthew Booker, actually reviews the wine suggestions made by CEC. Mr. Booker is, by all accounts, knowledgeable of the clubs’ operations. He is a former employee of Direct Wines Limited UK and familiar with Direct Wines Inc. and Lionstone.#® Based on that background, he was recommended fur hive by Direct Wines Limited UK to CEC2! However, despite his background, when selecting the wine and prices to be sold via the clubs, Mr. Booker operates ina similar manner to the retailer in ShipCompliant, including acquiescing to all of Direct Wines Inc.'s product and p. ons.” ‘The only active cules in the club's operations taken by CEC employces are the routine acceptance of Direct ‘Wines Inc's suggested wines, and the routine batch acceptance of orders that are sent to them by Direct Wines inc. ‘Thus, CIC abuicates the complete operation of the clubs to Direct Wines Inc,, an unlicensed entity, which then assigns various tasks to subcontractors. Thus, retail functions are once, if not twice, removed from the licensee, te., ander the CEC model, Direct Wines Inc. and other subcontractors all work together to sell wine at cetail without holding a ticense. ABCL Section 2 declares that the policy of New York, and the purpose of the Authority, is to regulate and control the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcoholic at the june 4, 2014 Board Meeting, Mr. Rosenkranz daimed that, as former employee, Mr. Booker was so Foaniliae with the operations of Direct Wines Ine. that he did not need a written agreement regarding the use of the ‘tub trademarks 2 srarements matte by Simon McMurtrie on May 14, 2014 Declaratory Ruling August 26, 2014 2014-02146, Page 11 ewsis2beverages for the protection, health, weltare and safety of the people of New York Accordingly, the Authority cegulates and monitors all licensees who traffic in alcoholic beverages. The club model as created by Lionstone, Archway, and the former Direct Wines Inc, permits the present Direct Wines Inc, an unlicensed entity, to traffic in alcoholic beverages. ‘Thus, the Members find that, as described by Mr. Rosenkranz, ¢ relationship with Direct Wines Inc. violates ABCI § 111 lub ‘Trademarks obtained by Archway ABCL Section 101.4{c) One of the services Direct Wines Ine. provides to CEC is the use of the trademarks for WS}, Zagat, Virgin and Laithwaite, Direct Wines Inc. does not own the trademarks; nor do they directly hold the rights to the trademarks, Direct Wines Inc. claims legal use of the trademarks through an agreement with Archway, an entity not referred to in CEC's petition”? ‘The Authority has reviewed the’ trademark agreements between Dow jones Inc, Jagat Surveys LLC. and Archway.! Both agreements prohibit the sublicensing of the trademarks without the express permission of the trademark holder. The Authority has not received any documentation that: (1) reflects a written sublicensing agreement between Archway and Direct Wines Inc.; (2) indicates consideration received by Archway for the use of the trademarks; or (3) reflects express consent to the sublicensing of the trademarks by Dow Jones Inc. and Zagat Survey LIC. Nor has the Authority been given any reason to believe that such documentation exists. These trademarks are critical to the operation of the clubs and, therefore, make Archway a critical stakeholder in the clubs.2* Archway is owned by DW USA Holdings Inc, the same company that owns Lionstone. As described by Simon McMurtrie, President of DW USA Holdings Inc, “DW USA Inc. exists as something to own two businesses, [t does not have, employees, or mect whatsoever."5 This common ownership structure renders the sublicensing of the trademark rights a gift or service indirectly provided by Lionstone to CEC. Accordingly, the Membors must determine if this service is a gift or service which influences CEC to purchase from Lionstone in violation of ABCI. Section 101.1(c). As discussed above, when engaging in an ABCL Section 101.1(c) analysis: the Members ask if the gift or service provided by the wholesaler or manufacturer is available 7 yhis information was disclosed during interviews conducted subsequent tothe fling ofthe request fora declaratory ruling. However, despite requests, the Authority has not ceceived any supporting documentation 2 When the agreements were executed Archway Was doing business 9s Direct Wines Inc > pursuant to the Dow Jones and Zagat ageeements, Archway pays Dow Jones in, and Zagat Far the trademarks ® statements made Siman MeMurtrie on May 14, 2014 Survey LLC he Declaratory Ruliny, “August 26, 2014 2014-021488 Page 12 Ewsissto all retailers. It is conceded by CEC that they are the only retailer in New York State permitted by Direct Wines Inc, to use these trademarks.26 requires the Members to then ask if the use of the trademarks is a gift or to purchase from Lionstone. Thi service which influences ‘The dubs in New York generate $20,000,002 in sales annually. Based on figures from C&C's petition, CEC's brick and mortar store in Rye Brook generates approximately $750,000 anaually. Clearly, CEC relies almost entirely oa the clubs’ sales, as opposed to in- store sales, for its profitability, And, of course, the trademarks are essential to the success ofthe clubs. Since the trademarks were obtained by Lionstone’s parent company, via Archway, for the sole purpose of marketing, and selling Lionstone's wine, it is inconceivable that if CRE stopped purchasing Lionstone’s wine that Archway would continue the current sublicensing arrangements. Accordingly, Lionstone's indirect provision of the trademarks to CHC not only influences CEC to purchase wine from Lionstone but, in fact, binds CEC to Lionstone. Based on the above analysis, CC's relationship with Direct Wines Inc. violates ABCL Sections 101.4(0). 4, Does the ABCL prohibit CEC fri limited activities outside New York? ‘The ABCL, does not require that every business decision be made at a licensed premises. However, ABCL Section 111 requires that sales be made from the licensed premises, In addition, ABCL Section 105.15 requires that books and records be maintained un the licensed premises, and SLA Rule Section 67.1 requires that all deliveries be made to the licensed premises or permitted warehouse. Generally, other functions may reasonably tbe conducted elsewhere. * : . 5. Does the ABC! prohibit iit GEE, aia license d retai les, frou operating and. maistaining some. of its invento: a teres there oecied based patie daa ‘The ABCL does not regulate the amount of inventory a retailer holds at their licensed premises, However, a complete lack of inventory or de minimus inventory, as seen in CC's prior Carmel location, will render a store non bona fide pursuant to SLA Rule 53.1(d). ‘The Members find ao authority within the ABCL or SLA Rules for the proposition that a retailer may not order. product prior to a customer's demand or request for the “ yar Rosenkrane’s une 13, 2024 letter, page 2» ay stated in CEC's petition. Declaratory Ruling ‘August 26, 2014 2014-021 481 Page 13, ewsis4product. Accordingly, in general, the ABCL does not prohibit the ordering and receiving of products from wholesalers as they are needed based on customer demand. Licensves are reminded that this ruling is limited to the facts set forth herein. This ruling should not be considered approval for any other proposal which deviates, in any respect, from the representations set forth above. Licensees are warned that entering into any arrangement, or continuing an existing arrangement that is deemed under this ruling to be prohibited by the ABCI. may subject the licensee to disciplinary action by the Authority. ‘the forgoing Declaratory Ruling was approved by the Members of the Authority at Full Board meeting held on August 26, 2014. . : eS any etic rpyte the Authority August 26, 2014 Declaratory Ruling Page 14 2014-02140 ewsissSTATE OF NEW YORK: LIQUOR AUHORITY Application of the Alcoholic Beverage DECLARATORY Control Law to Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 RULING 2014-01059 Preliminary Statement Section 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle 8) provides that any person may request that the Authority issue a declaratory ruling on the application of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, or the Rules of the Authority, (o any person, property or state of facts. Ly letter dated February 21, 2014, a request was submitted by Dini Rao, on behalf of Lot 18, a package store in Mahopac, New York. Ms. Rao requests a declaratory ruling as to whether the operation of an Internet wine club co-branded with a marketing company violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Statement of Facts Lot 18 operates a website for their brick and mortar package store. Listed on + their website is their wine club called““Tasting Room.” Members of the Tasting : Room wine club receive a tasting kit from Lot 18 containing several small boities i of various wines. Customers are asked to taste cach wine and report their likes and information Lot 18 creates “a wine profile” for ives shipments of wine suited for their dislikes to Lot (8. Based on U cach customer and each customer then r wine profile. All orders for the ‘Tasting Room club are received via the website and reviewed aid accepted (or rejected) at the Lot 18 package store in Mahopac, NY during store hours. Lot 18 employees then send orders electronically to a public warehouse in Wurtsboro, NY. Lot 18 kceps inventory in the public warchouse permitted to We Ship for both their package store and Internet sales. We Ship receives directions from Lot 18 and then takes the wine from the Lot 18 inventory Ews156and boxes the wine accordingly. ‘The wine is then picked up for delivery by a common carrier and delivered direetly to the New York customer. he ‘Tasting Room wine club as described above and these specific operations were presented to the Members and approved by the Board on January 14, 2014 when the Full Board approved Lot 18’s package store application, Additionally, when reviewing and approving the package store application the Board reviewed Lot 18’s usc of non-licensed third party marketing companies. ‘The Board approved Lot 18's use of marketing companies such as Google, which Lot 18 pays ona per click basis. ‘The Board also approved the use of marketing companies that are paid based on the number of customers they obtain for Lot 18. Such marketing companies included Geist Media and Commission Junction. Lot 18 reported all third party marketing companies which they utilize. Allare paid flat fees. No marketing company receives a percentage of the sales of alcoholic beverages, Lot 18 now asks the Board if it is permissible to co-brand this wine club: with a non-licensed marketing partner, Specifically, Lot 18 asks if it is permissible lo co-brand the winc club with Forbes, and title the club Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18, As get-out in Ms, Rao’s letter, the co-branded wine club would operate in the same manner as the Tasting Room wine club with the following exceptions: (1) the wine club would be called “Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18”: and (2) Forbes would for the wine club in print, online, of through other means. circulate advertiscmes Applicable Law Section 100.1 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states that no person shall sell alcoholic beverages in New York without obtaining the appropriate license, Section 105.14 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law prohibits liquor stores from: (1) operating on Sundays before noon and afiér 9 p.m.s (2) operating ewsis7between midnight and 8 a.m, on.any day; (3) operating on Christmas and; (4) selling alcoholic beverages when the store is closed to the public. Scetion 105.15 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law requires all liquor stores t maintain adequate books and records at the licensed location. SLA Rule § 99.2 prohibits retailers [rom engaging in any deceptive or misleading advertising. Section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law states that a license“... shall not be transferable to any other person or to any other premises...it shall be available only to the person therein specified ....” Issues Presented Does the co-branding of the wine club with Forbes, and marketing by Forbes violate the ABCL? Determination of the Board When examining Internet sales involving product being shipped directly to New York customers there are some basic questions that must first be addressed. ABCL $100 requires all those selling alcoholic beverages in New York to hold the appropriate livense. “Therefore, the Board must first ask.who may’sell wine shipped directly to New York customers. Only New York licensed package stores or wineries with direct shipping permits may sell and ship wine directly to New York customers. Lot 18 holds a New York package store license and operates a bona fide package store; therefore, they may legally engage in direct sales and shipments to New York customers. Next, pursuant to ABCL §111, a license to sell alcoholic beverages is applicable to only the specific location licensed and the specific person licensed, ‘Accordingly, sales may only be made from the licensed premise by the licensee or employees of the licensee. All Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 orders are reecived, ceviewed and accepted (or rejected) by Lot 18 employees at the licensed premises, ews1s8Finally, ABCL §105,14 also governs the times during which sales of alcoholic beverages may take place. ‘Ihe hours for the fot 18 store comply with ABCL §105.14. Horbes Wine Club by Lot18’s sales occur only during the store’s operating hours in Mahopae, NY and all records are maintained at the liccnsed location pursuant to ABCL §105.15 With these basic questions answered, the Bourd must now examine the more complex issucé of the co-branding and marketing agreement between Lot 18 and Korbes. When reviewing the use of non-licensed third parly marketers by retailers the Board carefully examines the relationship, written agreements and actions of cach party to ensure that the licensee retains control of the sate of all alcoholic boverages and that the licensce receives the profits from the sales. In order to make this determination, the Board refers to the standard established in Declaratory Ruling 2013-01006A regarding ShipCompliant. Pursuant to 2013- OLO06A, the Board must cxamine: (1)'The role of the retail licensee. (2)'the role of the non-licensed marketing company. (3) The compensation to the non-licensed marketing company. 1. ‘The role of Lot 18 in the Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18. A review of the business model [rom start to finish shows that Lot 18 retains full control over the retail sale of the wine. Lot 18 has sole discretion over the wine sold via the wine club. All wine comes from Lot 18’s inventory. It is wine selected by Lot 18, purchased from New York State licensed wholesalers, and paid for by Lot 18 prior to the customer’s purchase. Morbes Wine Chub by Lot 18 does not operate on a just-in-time basis. Lot [8 has invested in inventory for this wine club and therefore assumes tisk. Additionally, the price of the wine is sct by Lot 18. There is no consultation with, or recommendations from, lorbes concerning wine selection or price or any other facet of the wine chub. ‘The role of Forbes is limited to marketing. ewsisoAll orders for the wine club are reviewed and received by Lot 18 employees at the licensed premises. All directions to We Ship, the fulfillment company, come from Lot 18 employees All payments for wine club purchases are made dircetly to Lot 18, Credit card information is received and processed with deposits made directly into the bank account of Lot 18. Payments are made by Lot 18 to We Ship for packaging services and payments are made by Lot 18 fo the common catriers used for delivery. With the exception of actually packaging the boxes of wine and delivering them, Lot 18 cmployces actively execute all aspects of the sale. 2. ‘The role of Forbes. Forbes provided the Authority with the contract to be executed with Lot 18 and appeared before the Full Board to answer questions. All responses and the contract show that Fobres’ involvement in the wine club is twofold. First, Forbes co-brands the wine club with its trade name, and second, Forbes markets the wine club. ‘The contract specifically enumerates the services of Forbes as follows: 1. [Forbes| will market Wine Club through agreed-upon tactics using online and offline distribution methods. 2. [Forbes] does not and shall not influence the selection or the pricing of the wines offered by the Wine Club. Based upon this contract and the questions answered by both Forbes and Lot L8, the Board finds that Forbes plays no role in the retail sale of the wine. More plainly stated, it cannot be argued that Forbes is selling wine. As for the co-branding of the wine club, this is also addressed in the contract between Lot 18 and Porbes. When reviewing the use of the Forbes trademark itis of great importance to the Board that the agreement for trademark use is directly between Lot 18 and Forbes and not through a third party. By this direct agreement the responsibilities of cach party, and the agreed upon consideration, are clear and unequivocal ewsi6oAs for the actual usage of the Forbes trademark, all webpages and materials clearly label the wine club as Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18. Every portion of the website states that L.ot 18, a New York retailer in Mahopac, NY, is selling the wine, A customer does not have to look for the fine print for this information because the name 1.01 18, and references to the brick and mortar store, appear throughout every portion of the website, ‘There is no confusion regarding whether or not this wine club is operated by Lot 18, ‘the Board finds that this website complies with SLA Rule §99.2 and cannot reasonably be viewed as deceptive, 3. ‘The Compensation to Forbes. ‘The Board notes that all monies paid by wine club customers go directly into an account fully controlled by Lot 18. With the exception of the credit card gateway and processor, there is no third party interception of funds between the customer and retailer. Korbes receives compensation from Lot 18 for both the use of its trademark and the marketing services provided. ‘The marketing services provided by Forbes do not differ trom the services provided by other marketing companies already used by Lot 18 and approved ia their package store application. Pursuant to their agreement, Forbes will attempt to market the company via their media company and they will be paid by Lot 18 for every customer they obtain for the club, ‘They will be paid a Mat fee for the use of the trade name and for each customer enrolled in the club. Atno point does Forbes receive any percentage of the sales from wine. ‘Their compensation is based on the number of customers, not the value of a customer’s purchase, Because Forbes is paid merely for the services provided, they cannot reasonably be viewed as receiving a portion of the wine sales by Lot 18. Pursuant to the above analysis, which comports with Declaratory Ruling, 2013-01006A, the Board finds that Lot 18 retains total control of every retail function and utilizes Forbes as a trademark partner and marketing company. Accordingly, the Forbes Wine Club by Lot 18 model as presented by Ms. Rav docs nol violate the ABCL, Licensees are reminded that this ruling is limited to the, ewsistuling should not be considered approval tor any other proposal which deviates, in any respect, from the representations as set forth above. ‘The forgoing Declaratory Ruling was approved by the Members of the Authority at a Full Board meeting held on May 6, 2014. Jacqueline Held Secretary to the Authority Ewst62STATE OF NEW YORK: LIQUOR AUTHORITY ion of Smart Phone application Stingr DECLARATORY RULING 2013-02826 Oper: Preliminary Statement Section 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle 8) provides that any person may request the Authority to issue a declaratory ruling on the application of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, or the Rules of the Authority, to any person, property or state of facts. By letter dated July 30, 2013, a request was submitted by Justin Malvin, President of Slingr, inc. Slingr docs not hold ticenses relating to alcoholic beverages, As described by Mr. Malvin, Slingr is @ location-based social gifting web application. Slingr enables customers at licensed premises to receive delivery of menu items, including alcoholic beverages which are purchased by others not at the premises, Mr. Malvin requests @ declaratory ruling as to whether the operation of Slingr violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Statement of Fucts Slinge is a smartphone app. Slingr permits customers at participating licensed on-premises venues to receive delivery/slings” of-the venue's menu items ~ both alcoholic beverages and food items ~ which were ordered and paid for by itiends and followers on social networks. In order to receive a “sling,” a customer at a participating on-premises venue must “check in” at the location via the Slingr app or another social media outlet. Friends, family or followers of the customer can then send a “sling” to the customer while they are at the venue. Via the Slingr app, friends may view the venue's menu, order items and pay for items to then be served to their friend at the venue. ‘The licensed on-premises yenue selects the items, both Food and alcoholic beverages which are listed on the Slingr app as well as the price. The licensed The licensed venue is responsible for lings” for alcoholic beverages are of yenue must accept or reject each order. ensuring that all customers who receive Declaratory Ruling October 22, 2013 2013-028268 Page 1 ewsis3legal drinking age. All alcoholic beverages are served by employees of the licensed establishment When an order is placed via Slingr, Slingr captures the credit card funds Orders may even include tips for the venue’s wait staff, On a weekly basis, Slingr pays each venue the amount they have collected for them via direct deposit or check minus the Slingr fee. Currently, Slingr charges the licensed venue a per wansaction fee of 25 cents per order plus 2.5% of each transaction. If an order/*sling” Is rejected the captured funds are not processed. Orders that are unattended will be void, Slingr installs their electronic hardware in cach participating venue free of charge. Each venue is responsible for electricity charges and Internet service which the Slingr hardware uses. Applicable Law Section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law prevents a licensee from making their license “available” to anyone. Section 111 states a license issued “ shall not be transferable (0 any other person or to any other premises...it shall be available only to the person therein specified ...”. Section 110(1}(g) requires disclosure of anyone with a financial interest in a licensed premises. Issues Presented (1) Does the operating method of Slingr constitute an availing of an on- premises license? (2) Does Slingr have an ownership interest in the nsed premises? Determination of the Mentbers When determining if a retail licensee has made its license available to another, the Members examine the role of the licensee in the operation of the premises. The Members ask whether the licensee is playing a passive vole and if an unlicensed person is acting in their place. Declaratory Ruling October 22, 2013, 2013-028268 Page 2 ewsieaUnder the facts as presented by Mr. Malvin, it appears that Slingr does not play any role in the operation of a licensed premises. All licensees retain control ‘of the product selection, product prices and delivery of the products. Slingr does, as part of its services, collect payment for the product but that payment is soon transferred to the licensee. Under these particular facts, the licensee retains all essential controls and has not made its’ license “available” to an unlicensed party. Accordingly, the Slingr app does not violate Section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Additionally, the Members must examine whether an unlicensed party has @ financial interest in a licensed premises, Under the facts stated by Mr. Malvin, Slingr receives a flat fee for their services and then a small percentage of items sold via their app. This percentage appears to be an insignificant amount of the overall revenue generated from the sale of alcoholic beverages at a licensed premises. Accordingly, it is the finding of the Members that this fee does not grant Slingr an ownership interest in a licensed premises and, therefore, does not violate Section 110(1}(g) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, In conclusion, the specific operation of Stingr as described by Mr, Malvin does not violate the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. Licensees are reminded that this ruling is limited to the facts set forth herein. This ruling should not be considered approval for any other proposal which deviates in any respect from the representations as set forth above. The forgoing Declaratory Ruling was approved by the Members of the Authority at a Full Board meeting held on October 22, 2013. Declaratory Ruling “October 22, 201 2018-02826 Pay ews65STATE OF NEW YORK: LIQUOR AUTHORITY Operation of smartphone/web application DECLARATORY Drizly RULING 2013-02526 ry Statement Prelimin: Section 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle B) provides that any person may request the Authority to issue a declaratory ruling, on the application of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, or the Rules of the Authority, to any person; property or state of facts. By letter dated June 26, 2013, a request was submitted by attorney Martin Mehler, on behalf of his client Drizly. Drizly docs not hold any licenses relating to alcoholic beverages. As described by Mr. Mehler, Drizly is a smattphone/Aweb application (“app”) that enables the user to purchase alcoholic beverages from a local package siore and have it delivered to them in less than 60 minutes. Mr. Mehler requests a declaratory ruling as to whether the operation of Drizly violates the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (“ABCL”). Statement of Facts Drizly is a smartphone/web app that enables customers to purchase alcoholic bevérages for delivery. It also, vid GPS, permits customers to track the physical movements of their orders while en route. Drizly customers create accounts that include their location and credit card information. Licensed retailers who participate with Drizly also create accounts, Retailers’ accounts include the products they sclect to sell via Drizly along, with the prices they wish to sell them. Participating stores post 150 to 200 items for sale via the Drizly app. ‘The retailer must maintain a credit card processing account and bank account with institutions designated by Drizly. ‘The retailer must also use the iPads and iPhones which contain the Drizly software. Drizly assigns cach participating retailer a geographic area for which they will service customers, When a customer uses Drizly in a specific geographic area, Deckaratory Ruling. ptember 25, 2013 2013-02526 Page 1 ewsissthey will be directed to the one participating retailer in that area. ‘The retailer with review the order and choose to accept or deny it. IF the order is accepted, it will be delivered to the customer, ‘The Drizly app permits the customer via GPS to track the physical location of their order. ‘The retailer's delivery employees are responsible for ensuring thal customers are all of legal age. Participating retailers pay a flat monthly fee to Drizly for their services and use of the iPads and iPhones along with a small flat fee for every order placed via the upp. Customer payments go directly to accounts controlled solely by each retailer, Each retailer then pays Drizly the amount due. At times Drizly may run ads on their app for certain alcoholic beverages but the ads do not mention or list specific retailers. Applicable Law Section 111 of the ABCL prevents a licensee from making their license able” to anyone. Section III states a license issued “... shall not be .. it shall be available only “oye transferable to any other person or to any other premis to the person therein specified ....” Section 110(1)(z) of the ABCL requires disclosure of anyone with a financial interest in a licensed premis (J) Does the operating, method of Drizly constitute an availing of a-retail license? (2) Does Dri ly obtain an ownership interest in the licensed premises? De ‘min: of the Members When determining iff a retail licensee has made their license available to another, tfie Members examine the role of the licensee in the operation of the premises. ‘The Members ask: (1) whether the licensee is playing a passive role and if an unlicensed person is acting, in their place; and (2) does an unlicensed party have an ownership or financial interest in the licensed prem! Declaratory Rulin September 25, 2013, 2013-02526 Page 2 ewsi67‘To answer the first question the Board has reviewed the role and functions of the licensed retailer who participates with Drizly. ‘The licensed retailer selects the products to be sold, the price it is sold at and whether or not to accept an order. ‘The licensed retailer delivers the product, ensures that customers are of a legal age and processes and collects all the funds for each sale, A retailer participating with Deizly retains total control of their products, service and finances. Accordingly, retailers participating with Drizly are not passive agents but active retailers responsible for all business functions. There is no argument fo be made that Drizly controls any portion of the licensed busines cond question of whether or not Drizly has a financial or ownership interest in a ticensed premises, the Board answers this question in the negative. All funds go directly from the customer to the retaiter. ‘The retailer is the only one with access to these funds. Drizly and the licensée do not maintain escrow accounts, Rather, Drizly is paid a flat fee for their services provided. Drizly does not receive a portion of the licensed retailer’s profits, Accordingly, it cannot be argued that Drizly possess a financial interest or ownership interest in the licensed retailer’s business. In response to the In conclusion, the specific operation of Drizly as described by Mr, Mehler does not violate the ABCL. Drizly’s third party services are simply marketing services and do not constituté an availing of a license or & financial interest in a licensed premises. Licensees are reminded that this ruling is limited to the facts set forth herein. ‘This ruling should not be considered approval for any other proposal which deviates, in any respect with the representations as set forth above. ‘The foregoing Declaratory Ruling was formally approved by the Mernbers of the Authority al a Full Board meeting held on September 25, 2013, Jacquell ecrelaty to the Authority Declaratory Ruling. 2013-02526 ewsi6aLIQUOR AUTHORITY = OF NEW YOR STAI Appiication of Six88 Solutions, Inc. d/bfa DECLARATORY ShipCompliant for a determination on legality RULING of internet advertising platform 2013-01060, Eveliminary Statement ction 98.1 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority, (9 NYCRR subtitle 88) provides that any persori may submit a request to the Authority for a declaratory ruling with respect to the application of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (“ABCL"), or the Rutles of the Authority, to any person, property or state of facts, Itinman & Carmichael, [1.P (John Hinman, Bsq., of counsel) on behalf of an unlicensed entity (Six88 Solutions, Inc. d/b/a ShipCompliant “ShipCompliant”) has submitted such a request (the Request") to ascertain whether, under the facts presented, ShipCompliant’s alcoholic beverage business model and compliance system, referred to as the MarketPlace Platform, violates the ABCT or applicable Authority Rules, As described below, this ruling relates to ShipCompliant’s MarketPlace Platform sales conducted through New York's three-tier system, referred to in the Request as “37.” ShipCompliant also provides its services to out-of-state wineries that ‘hold ABCL §79-c direct shipper licenses, under its “Producer Direct” program. Because its Producer Direct program was not the subject of ShipCompliant's Request, it is not addressed in this Ruling. At the time the Request was received, the Authority was conducting an inquiry into the relationships among certain licensees, ShipCompliant and an advertiser who, working together, were engaged in the sule of wine to New York consumers through an internet website, In light of the facts developed up to that point in the inquiry, as well as the interest from the alcoholic beverage industry in the questions raised by both the inquiry and this Request, the Members of the Authority conducted a special Pull Board meeting on Januery 17, 2013, ‘The purpose of the meeting was to allow a full discussion of ShipCompliant's Request, and afford industy members, and other interested parties, an opportunity 10 be heard on the issue of Internet sales, Declaratory Ruling April 9, 2013, 2015-01006 Page 1 pwst6aRequest to be considered As set forth in the Request made by Me. Hinman in his December 14, 2012 letter, ShipCompliant is an unlicensed technology and regulatory compliance services company that has developed a business model and compliance system called the “MartketPlace Platform.” As described in the Request, the MarketPlace Platform is a mechanism for facilitating sales of wine fo consumers by licensed sellers whi utilize the services of Internet advertising platforms. In New York Stute, such sellers could include licensed package und wine stores, licensed wineries and farm wineries, and out-of-state wineries that hold a direct shipping license (hereinafter referred to collectively as “licensed sellers”) ‘As further explained in the Request, the MarketPlace Platform allows licensed sellers’ to utilize the services of advertising: entities (hereinafter “advertisers”), such as internet marketing portals, online magazines and specialty websites, ‘These advertisers do not have licenses to sell alcoholic beverages Consumers can view wines advertised by licensed sellers on an advertiser's website and then place an "order request.” The advertiser, using the MarketPlace Platform, conveys that "order request” to the licensed seller, who "must cither accept or reject the order request." If the seller accepts the order request, the seller then “directs” the fulfillment of the order. According 10 ShipCompliant’s Request, “the advertiser and ShipCompliant both receive a fee tom the licensed seller for cach sal ‘The Request states that the MarketPlace Platform was designed to “work within the four corners of all state and federal alcoholie beverage laws" and “to be compliant with New York aw.” ‘The Request further states th Key to the system is the fact that the Licensed Seller controls all aspects of cach transaction, including decisions conceming the selcetion of alcoholic beverages to advertise or offer for sale, the pricing of those beverages, und the ultimate acceptance and fulfillment of each order, With respect to wine sold by a licensed retailer, the Request represents that such products are sold in accordance with New York's three-Lier systern, Dociaratory Ruling” See Aprit ¢, 2013 2013010060, Vage 2 ewsi70At the time of the January 17, 2013 Full Board Meeting, ShipCompliant’s business associates in New York included a licensed wholesaler, a licensed retailer, and an Intemet advertiser, Pursuant to various agreements, the parties were using the MarketPlace Platform to sell wine to New York consumers. The facts developed during the Authority's inquiry and at the Full Board meeting indicate that ShipCompliant's Request does not provide an accurate or complete description of the, actual relations among these business wssooiates, Contrary to the representations made in the Request regarding the control exercised by the licensed seller, the Authority found that, in fact, the business model among the participating entities placed the licensed sellers in a passive role. Examples were legion: * The advertiser's agecement with the wholesaler provided that the wholesaler would receive a flat fee per bottle solds © ‘The advertiser's initial agreement with the retailer provided that the retailer would receive # Mat fee per bottle sold; © ‘The advertiser selected the wines to be sold through agreements with suppliers; set the prices at which to sell the wine. While the retailer aware the retailer * ‘the advertis could request @ different price, so far as the Authority is never did so; © ‘The retailer had no agreement with the warehouse to which the wine to be sold was delivered, and did not know where the warehouse was located, © The advertiser had an agreement with the warchouse, which included terms relating to shipping the wine from California; © All wine sold by the retailer through the MarketPlace Platform was sold from the warehouse. None was sold out of the retailer's store; Deolaratory Ruling Pane TT ETI 2013-01006 Pape 3 ewst7+ Initially, the retailer could “accept un. “order request" by simply not rejecting it within @ prescribed time. While the Authority understands that during the pendeney of this request the process was changed to require a computer keystroke by the retailer, the Authority was further advised that r never rejected an "order request." the retail During the Authority's inquiry, the advertiser's agecement with the retailer was revised to climinate the flat fee per bottle sold, The advertiser then submitted monthly advertising bills to the retailet. However, the significant variation in the amounts of the edvertiser’s monthly bills, the lack of detail, and the retailer's lack of concern with the bills (as expressed during our inguiry), indicates that the arrangement likely remained, in its practical effect, a Mat fee to the retailer por bottle sold. Notably, the retailer never reviewed or approved any advertisements prepared by the advertiser, While many of the Authority's concerns relate lo the relationship between the advertiser and the retailer, the agreement between ShipCompliant and the retailer also raises questions. The very detailed and sestrictive “Contral Account Tnstructions” governing “all access to the Retailer Control Account fi.e. the escrow account}, including, without limitation, the deposit and disbursement of all, funds into and out” of this account, calls into question what, if any, control the participating retailer exercised over funds paid for the alcoholic beverages, The Authority also noted that the agreement between ShipCompliant and the retailer provides that when the retailer accepts” an order request such that it becomes un “Order,” “the retailer will be bound to the terms of thet Order, including, es applicable, the Product, quantity, pricing, Fulfillment A'ggnt and Wholesaler specified in the Order." While such a provision might appear on its face to be reasonable, when combined with the passive role of the retailer and the pervasive role of the advertiser, it supports the view that, in their current operation in New York, the model of ShipCompliant and its business associates does not comply with the ABCL. or applicable Authority Rules. Determination of the Authority ABCI. §3(28) defines “sale” broadly as “any transfor, exchange or barter in any manner or by any means whatsoever for'a consideration, and includes and Apail 9, 2013) Declaratory Ruling Page 4 ewst72means all sales made by any person, whether principal, proprietor, agent, servant or employee of any alcoholic beverage... “To sell’ includes to solicit or receive an order for, to keep or expose for sale, and to keep with intent to sell and shall include the delivery of any alcoholic beverage ia the state.” ABCT, §100(1) requires any person engaged in the manufacture for sale or sale (at wholesale or retail) to obtain the appropriate license from the Authority, ABCL §11| ptohibits a jcensee from making its license available to a person who has not been approved by the Authority to hold that license. ‘The question to be considered in (his matter is whethef the licensed seller utilizing the MarketPlace platform, in the manner found herein by the Authority, was making its license available to an unlicensed entity and allowing that cntity to engage in the sale of alcoholic beverages. ‘The Members of the Authority are aware that the Authority’s Office of Counsel has provided some guidance 10 licensees seeking to use the services of third parties 10 market and sell alcoholic beverages at retail and wholesale on the Intemet. ‘The Office of Counsel has offered the opinion that third parties may contract with licensees to host and maintain a licensee’s website and/or provide rclated services. As suggested by the Office of Counsel, a third party may allow a licensee to advertise its products on the thicd party’s website, provided that consumers are directed ‘0 the licensce’s website to place an order. Under such circumstances, the Office of Counsel has advised that the third party's compensation must be limited to a flat fee that is not contingent on the number of sales or (he amount sold, The Members of the Authority, without formally adopting the opinion of the Office of Counsel, find that licensces may rely on that opinion wntil such time the Members of the Authority address the issues raised: by this request and, more generally, by the involvement of unlicensed patties in the Internet sale of alcoholic, < fo consumers in this state. The Members of the Authority have also issued declaratory rulings in (vo matters with respect to companies that offer online coupons that can be used for the purchase of alcoholic beveriges. Those rulings stre: we of restricting the involvement of such companies in the actual sale of alcoholic beverages. It is the intention of the Authority to conduct public meetings and gather information to further explore these issues, The Authority's goal is to issue an advisory that will provide comprehensive guidance to the industry that, on or hand, recognizes the importance of licensing those who taflic in alcoholic , on the other hand, recognizing that developments in technology beverages whil Geelaratory Ruling April 9, 2013 2073-00060, Page 5 ewst73‘urther details of the must be taken inlo consideration when interpreting the law. Authority's efforts will be provided on the agency’s website. Returning to ShipCompliant’s Request, it is clear that the ficensed seller who was doing business with the advertiser played tittle, if any, role in the sale of wine through the MarketPlace Platform. The licensee was not involved in choosing, which brands of alcoholic beverages were (o be sold or in determining the prives to be charged. ‘These decisions were made at the discretion of the advertiser pursuant to contracts between the various entities involved in the chain of distribution, Likewise, the profit margin on cach sale to be made by the licensed retailer and the licensed wholesaler was specifically set forth in contractual agreements with the advertiser, After the Authority leaned this, the Advertiser altered its with the retailer, But as stated above, the Authority found that the monthly advertising bills thercafler submitted by the advertiser to the retailer were of no interest to the retailer, giving rise to the inference that the retailer’s profit remained predetermined regardless of the newly instituted billing procedures. In addition, the consumer eredit card funds are contractually agreed upon to be processed by a third parly [nancial institution, forwarded to an escrow account opened in the name of the licensed seller, and subsequently distributed to the entities in the cbain of distribution according to strict eserow instructions — thereby leaving no discretion or contral whatsoever in the hands of the licensed seller. This method of operation allows an unfivensed advertiser 10 exercise a high cgree of control over the business operations of the participating licensed seller via contractual arrangements with the entities in the chain of distribution. ‘The contractual arrangements between the parties not only allowed the unlicensed _ advertiser to receive the predominant proportion of the proceeds from the sale of aleoholic beverages, which the Authority has generally considered a violation of ABCL §1If, but also dictated to the licensed retailer and wholesaler the remuneration Uhey derived fiom cach sale conducted pursuant to their licenses. Due tw the foregoing, the method of operation proposed in ShipCompliant's Request, as the Authority found it to be actually operating in New York, enables and, in fact, encournges licensed entities to make their licenses available to unlicensed entities in violation of ABCI, §111, Accordingly, the Members of the Authority find, based on the record, that the involvement of the unlicensed third party advertiser in the MarketPlace Platform constituted the sale by it of alcoholic beverages. Given that the advertiser Declaratory Ruling April, 2013, 2013.010068 Page 6 ewsi74is unlicensed, the relationship between the advertiser und the licensed seller in the MarketPlace Plaliorm system constitutes a violation of ABCL 111. Pending the Authority's issuance of an Advisory providing more comprehensive guidance, the Authority finds thal any of the following methods of operation are nol permissible under the ABCL: (1) where a ticensed seller takes a pussive role in the transactions and/or inours no Business risk in the arrangement; (2) where an advertiser or other unlicensed party is permilted to perform retail functions, such as deciding: what products are to be sold; what prices are to be charged; how consumer funds are to be controlled and disbursed; or the retailer’s profit margin; or (3) where the compensation to a third party is a substantial portion of the sale or sales made, Licensees are wamed that entering, into any arrangement, or continuing an existing arangement, that is deemed under this culing to be prohibited by the BCI, may subject the licensee to disciplinary action by the Authority. In evaluating arrangements between licensed and unlicensed cotities, the Authority will not-only consider the relevant written agreements. It will, in addition, evaluate the actual, practical, day-to-day functioning of the arrangements, Of related interest, all wines sold through the advertisers website featured bels containing the word “Direct” in addition to the standard brand or trade name. By contraet, cach supplier was required to “...cceale, submit and register a secondary label with the Alcohol, Tobacco ‘Tax and Trade Bureau (TT) and. ..reeeive a Certification of Label Approval (CO1A)” for the “Direct” version of its wine. ‘The Authority investigation revealed that such secondary Inbéls were never actually produced or utilized by ShipCompliant’s business partners in New York. Instead, stickers featuring the word “Direct” were utilized to create such “secondary” Jabeled product from standard labeled product already in the chain of distribution, Each supplier thereafter designated as its Exclusive Brand Agent the wholesaler participating in the business model, who may or may not have been the Exclusive Brand Agent for the standard version of the wine, ‘The “Direct” and standard versions of the wines were thus distributed in New York viu different Declaratory Ruling ~~ Apa 9, 2013 2043-01008, Page 7 ewsi75distribution channels in violation of the ABCI., and possibly sold at different prices, Guidance regarding marketing of the sume brand or trade name and vintage of wine utilizing two or more labels (with or without the use of stickers) ean be found in Authority Advisory 2013-3 The foregoing Declaratory Ruling was formally approved by the Members of the Authority at a Full Board meeting held on April 9, 2013. Secxetary.t0 the Authority Declaratory Rung i 25H 2013-01006 Baye 8 ewst76,Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: McLean, Brian (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:46 AM To: stmay@linnan-fallon com ce Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: NYS UQUOR AUTHORITY Attachments: EMPIRE WINE && SPIRITS LLC REQUEST LETTER docx Mr. Shawn May, Please see attached. Original request letter was sent out to your client, Bradley Junco, owner of Empire Wine & Spirits LLC via certified mail today Wednesday February 19, 2014. BRIAN J MCLEAN WHOLESALE INVESTIGATOR NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY ALFRED E SMITH BUILDING 80 SOUTH SWAN ST SUITE 900 ALBANY, NY 12210-8002 TELEPHONE: 518-474-4857 FAX: 518-402-4148, EMAIL: brian.mclean@sla.ny.gov, ewsi77ENNIS ROSEN ANDREW #4. CUOMO araTEOr New YORK rata cove =XECUTIVE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL JEANIQUE GREENE STATE JQUOR AUTHORITY ‘est 900 February 19, 2014 To: Mr. Bradley Junco Empire Wine & Spirits LLC 1440 Central Ave Albany, NY 12205 Re: Serial # 2137544 Dear Mr. Junco, Please produce copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether they exist in paper or electronic format, pertaining to your purchase of 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda from Martin Scott Wines, Ltd. during the period from January 1, 2013 until December 31, 2013. This product is identified by Martin Scott Wines, Ltd as product number 11402111 This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all emails to, from or among your employees, including any emails sent to, or received from, Martin Scott's employees, as well as any emails sent to, or received from, other retailers, concerning your purchase, or possible purchase, of the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda, as well as any internal memoranda or reports, or any other correspondence in any manner canceming the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda, which documents were created, transmitted, received or obtained by you between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. You ate also requested to identify by name all Martin Seott Wines, Ltd. solicitors who took orders from you, and/or discussed with any employee or principal of yours, the purchase by you of the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda at any time during 2013 Documents responsive to this demand may be submitted to the Offices of the New York State Liquor Authority in Albany, NY, to the attention of Investigator Brian Mot ean. ewsi78Please provide this requested documentation by no later than Friday March 7, 2014. Please send this request to the attention of Investigator NicLean of the NYSLA Wholesaler Bureau located at 80 South Swan Street Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210. If you have any questions you can contact me at 518-474-4857 or al my email address Brian.Mclean@sla.ny.gov. Investigator McLean, Wholesale Bureau NYS Liquor Authority ewst79Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Saville, Dennis (SLA) Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:16 AM ‘Shawn May ce Marsico, Margatita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) Subject: RETAILER INQUIRY Mr. May ~ We wish to work with you to schedule interviews of Empire Wine & Spirits employees Adam Morey and Dan Byron in the latter part of July or early in August. The interviews will include questions relating to the computer system utilized by Empire Wine and Spirits to accept and process information from solicitors. This topic was discussed with Mr. Junco during his interview. To facilitate the discussion of this topic, we request that Messrs, Morey and Byron bring to the interviews (which we will schedule with you on the same day) a laptop computer, so they can access the Empire Wine & Spirits in-house computer system, and produce screen “snapshot” images of the various steps in the process that Mr. Junco described during his interview. Please note that | have copied SLA Attorney Margarita Marsico on this email. We request that you copy her on all communications with us regarding this inquiry. Thank you, Dennis Saville/Ethan Manning , ewsis0Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1041 AM To: Saville, Dennis (SLA) ce: Marsico, Margatita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA); Empire Wine; Shawn May Subject: RE: INTERVIEWS OF ADAM MOREY AND DAN BYRON Attachments: Explanation of MWCT to SLAdoc dennis and Ethan, Brad Junca developed everything in regards to the computer system in use at his store, He will make himself ivallable for another interview at your convenience. Attached is an overview of the computer system along with «associated screenshots, Hopefully this overview will narrow your questions. We ask that you hold this information in onfidence and riot make it subject to any FOIL requests as it involves proprietary software and sensitive business information, Additionally, we would also appreciate it ifthe next interview can be conducted in a less aggressive sccusatory tone, We are attempting to cooperate with your investigation, whatever the origin may be, and have always snaintained we are operating within the laws of New York and the rules of the Liquor Authority. shawn Saville, Dennis (SLA) {malt:Dennis.Savile@sla.cy,aoy} Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:25 PM ‘To: Shawn May Ce: Marsico, Margarita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA); Savile, Dennis (SLA) Subject: INTERVIEWS OF ADAM MOREY AND DAN BYRON, Mr, May: We wish to work with you to schedule interviews of Empire Wine & Spirits employees Adam Morey and Dan Byron in the first week of August. : The interviews will include questions relating to the computer processes utilized by Empire Wine and Spirits to accept and process information from solicitors. This topic was discussed with Mr. Junco during his interview, To facilitate the discussion of this topic, we request that Messrs. Morey and Byron bring to the interviews (which we will schedule with you on the same day) a laptop computer, so they can access the Empire Wine & Spirits computer system, and produce screen “snapshot” images of the various steps in the process that Mr. Junco described during his interview. Please note that { have copied SLA Senior Attorney Margarita Marsico on this email. We’ request that you copy her on all communications with us regarding this inquiry. Thank You, Dennis Saville/Ethan Manning Ewst8sLINNAN & FALLON, LL Attorneys at Law GLENS FALLS OFFICE JAMES D. LINNAN. (18) 98-1400 CHARLENE 8. FALLON HUDSONOFFICE —__ 1818) 28-5400 (518) 449-5400 CATSKILLOGFICE a ‘Telefax No. (518) 449-5262 (31983-9000 sorta orm E-m nwinfotinan-alfn.com July 09, 2013 New York State Liquor Authority 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany, New York 12210 Re: Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC (Serial No.: 2137844) Dear Sir or Madam: Statement of Facts npite Wine & Spirits, LLC, has spent a great deal of time snd featured software package referred f0 as the Merchant fe means of Bradley Junco, sole principal of E resources to develop a web hased, multi Wholesaler Communication Tool, or MWCT. MWCT is designed to be a comprehens communication between wholesalers and Empire Wine and Spirits LLC. The software is designed to allow for more efficient management of the retail inventory and includes features allowing wholesaler management, item management and automated ordering based on parameters pre-set by Mr. Junco. The red in Mr. Junco’s retail package store, Empire Wine & Spirits (EWS). system is currently being atl Prior to the development of MWCT, cornmunication between authorized EWS employees and wholesalers was mainly limited to e-mails and phone calls, ‘This method of mavaging inventory was time consuming, difficult to organize and often resulted in inaccuracies. The MWCT centralizes all communications betweeti the wholesaler and EWS. into one web based system accessible by both EWS and wholesalers. It is a system of user generated message threads relating to the EWS inventory and the Wholesaler’s availability of items, Message threads are created by the wholesaler or EWS addressing issues such as out of stock items, low stock items or the availability of items. Once a thread is created, message alerts called “flags” are sent to both wholesaler and EWS, regardless of which side generated the thread. (See attachment 1). Both EWS and the wholesaler are able to access EWS’s real time inventory, item costs, pricing information, product location and sales history throygh a web enabled device, Access fo this information is strictly controlled and regulated by EWS and access these features are password protected. Each bws182Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Sant: To: Subject: vangarita, Shawn May Friday, August 02, 2013 3:28 PM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews I left a message with Brad to see iFhe has heen able to impress upon the employees the importance ot meeting, saith your guys. let you know as soon as | hear back, From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita, Marsicoi@sla.ny.ov} Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:49 PM To: Shawn May Subject: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Dear Mr. May, | write in follow up to my July 29" letter to confirm Messrs. Morey and Byron will be available to demonstrate the systems and for the interviews. Thanks for your cooperation. sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, Ath Floor New York, New York 10027 Tol: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewste3Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Shawn May Monday, August 05, 2013 4:48 PM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews ‘Attachments: Lettes to Margarita Marisco regarding scheduled meetings doc Margarita, 150 see attached. shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto: Margarita. Marsico@sla.ny.cov] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:49 PM To: Shawn May Subject: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Dear Mr. May, | write in follow up to my July 29" letter to confirm Messrs. Morey and Byron will be available to demonstrate the systems and for the interviews. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Aventie, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax; (212) 961-8316 ewsteaLINNAN & FALLON, LLP eee a Attorneys at Law GLENS FALLS OFFICE, roy ; (318) 798-1400 61 Columbia Street, Suite 300 CHARLENE S. FALLON ‘Albany, New York 12210-2736 Hlupsonorrice Sees 7 (515) 825 9400 7 (518) 449.5400 CATSKILL OFFICE, SHAWN T. MAY Telefax No. (518) 449-5262 (518) 965.9100 ‘won ianfaln cm Emil lwintortianafllon corn August 5, 2013 VIA E-MAIL. New York State Liquor Authority Margarita Marisco, Esq. 317 Lenox Avenue, 4" Floor New York, New York 10027 Re: Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC ial No.: 2137544 Dear Ms. Matisco: At the full board meeting counsel for the SLA publicly stated that Empire Wine was not being cooperative with the Authority in the course of their Winebow investigation. We strongly disagrée with that characterization, particularly in light of the faet that Bradley Junco provided a written statement to SLA investigators regarding the Winebow transaction and also met with investigators and gave a lengthy recorded statement. Additionally, Mr. Junco provided the Authority with a detailed write-up of how Empire's infernal computer system works and are eager to provide a live, in store demonstration of the system, It is Mr, Juncos intention to continue to do everything within his contro! to cooperate and assist the Authority in their inguities. We look forward to meeting with you at Empire’s store on August 9, 2013 at 10:00 am, Very truly yours, Is! Sonn Ty SHAWN T. MAY ce: Brad Junco ewstasFrom: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:26 PM To: “Shawn May Subject: Subpoenas returnable 9/10 Attachments: Empiresubpoena0816 pdf Dear Mr. May, Heft a phone message with your assistant. I have attached is a courtesy copy of subpoenas that were served on Adam Morey on Friday, August 16" in cannection with our inquiry. ‘Would you please contact me regarding contact information for Dan Byron, Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 964-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewsiasSTATE OF NEW YORK: EXECUTIVE DBPT. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL IN THE MATTER OF: SUBPOENA & EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Yo: Empire Wine & Liquor, 1440 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12205 Attn: Bradley A. Junco WE COMMAND YOU, all business and excuses being laid aside, to produce for examination before the New York State Liquor Authority, 80 South Swan Stre Suite 900, 9% Floor, Albany, NY 12210, on the 10th day of September, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., certain employees and certified copies of documents relevant to the above-referenced matter, as follows: (1) Produce Empire Wine & Spirits ("EWS") employees Dan Byron and Adam Morey for the purpose of providing a statement in connection with a general inquiry regarding EWS pursuant to Section 17 of the ABCL; (2) Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 63 cases of “Monsieur Touton Selection Ltd, Brunello De Montalcino Vigna Manapet'" ("the Montalcino purchase") shipped on or about 7/30/13, invoice number NY03250; {3) Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool (“MWCT") regarding the Montalcino purchase; (4) Documents sufficient to show the identify of persons entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; (6) Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Montalcino purchase; (6) Documents sufficient to show each date during which Montaleino purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (7) Any and all email correspondence regarding the Montalcino purchase; (8) Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 233 cases of Michael Skurnik Wines, shipped on or about 8/21/13, Invoice number 1-873889 (*Skurnik Wine purchase”); Documents sufficient to show date and time of date entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool (*MWCT") regarding the Sturhik Wine purchase; ewsie7° (19) ay (12) (13) (aa) (15) (16) a7 (18) (19) 20) Documents sufficient to show the identity of persons entering data into the MWCT systern; Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Skurnik Wine purchase; Documents sufficient to show each date during which the Skurnik Wine purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; Any and all email correspondence regarding the Skurnil Wine purchase; Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate (o the purchase Col D’Orcia wine invoiced on or about 4/11/13, invoice number 3154852 (“the D'Orcia Purchase.”"); Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool ("MWC") regarding the D’Orcia purchase; Documents sufficient to show the identify of persons entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the D'Orcia purchase; Documents sufficient to show each date during which D’Orcia purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; Any and all email correspondence regarding the D'Orcia purchase; All documents showing your corporate structure, including organizational charts; . GENERAL REQUEST: Copies of all wholesaler invoices from the time period of March 1, 2013 until the present; ‘TAKE NOTICE that false swearing or failure to comply with this Subpoena Duces Tecum is punishable as a contempt of Court, WITNESS, Margarita Marsico, Associate General Counsel, New York State Liquor Authority, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, New York 10027, this 16th day of August, 2013. inhale Marsico, Esq. NYS Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, New York 10027 (212) 961-8318 ewsi98STATE OF NEW YORK: EXECUTIVE DEPT. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL IN THE MATTER OF: SUBPOENA & EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Adam Morey, Empire Wine & Liquor, 1440 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12205 WE COMMAND YOU, all business and excuses being laid aside, to atlend an examination before the New York State Liquor Authority, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900, 9 Floor, Albany, NY 12210, on the 10th day of September, 2013, at 11:00 a.m,, relevant to the above-referenced matter, AND WE FURTHER COMMAND YOU to produce for examination, at or before the time and place aforesaid, a certified copy of the following papers pertaining to the above captioned matters: a) (2) 8) (4) (8) © m entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 63 cases of “Monsieur Touton Selection Ltd. Brunello De Montalcino Vigna Manapet” ("the Montalcino purchase”) shipped on or about 7/30/13, invoice number NY603250; Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool (*MWCT") regarding the Montalcino purchase; Documents suflicient to show the identify of persons Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Montalcino purchase; Documents sufficient to show each date during which Montalcino purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; Any and all email correspondence regarding the Montalcino purchase; Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 233 cases of Michael Skurnik Wines, shipped on ot about 5/21/18, Invoice number [-878889 (“Skurnik Wine purchase”); Documents sufficient to show date and time of date entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication ‘Tool (*MWCT) regarding the Skurnik Wine purchase;(8) Documents sufficient to show the identity of persons entering data into the MWCT ayatem; (9) Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Skurnik Wine purchase; (10) Documents sufficient to show each date during which the Skurnik Wine purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (11) Any and all email correspondence regarding the Skurnik Wine purchase; (12) Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase Col D’Orcia wine invoiced on or about 4/11/13, itivoice number 3154852 ("the D/Orcia Purchase.””); {13} Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool ("MWC") regarding the D’Orcia purchase; (14) Documents sufficient to show the identify of persons entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; (15) Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the D’Oreia purchase; (16) Documents sufficient to show each date during which D’Orcia purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (17) Any and all email correspondence regarding the D’Orcia purchase; (18) All documents showing your corporate structure, including organizational charts; (19) GENBRAL REQUEST: Copies of all wholesaler invoices from the time period of March 1, 2013 until the present; TAKE NOTICE that false swearing or failure to comply with this Subpoena Duces Tecum is punishable as a contempt of Court, WITNESS, Margarita Marsico, Associate General Counsel, New York State Liquor Authority, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, New York 10027, this L6th day of August, 2013. ita Marsico, Esq. NYS Liquor Authority ~ 317 Lenox Avenue New York, New York 10027 (212) 961-8318STATE OF NEW YORK: EXECUTIVE DEPT. DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, IN THE MATTER OF: SUBPOENA & EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM To: Dan Byron, Empire Wine & Liquor, 1440 Central Avenue, Albany, NY 12205, WE COMMAND YOU, all business and excuses being laid aside, to attend an examination before the New York State Liquor Authority, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900, 9% Floor, Albany, NY 12210, on the 10th day of September, 2013, at 11:00 a.m,, relevant to the above-referenced matter, AND WE FURTHER COMMAND YOU to produce for examination, at or before the time and place aforesaid, a certified copy of the following papers pertaining to the above captioned matters: (2) Copies of any and al! documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 63 cases of “Monsieur Touton Selection Ltd. Brunello De Montalcino Vigna Manapet” (“the Montalcino purchase”) shipped on or about 7/30/13, invoice number NY603250; (2) Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool (‘MWCT?) regarding the Montalcino purchase; (3) Documents sufficient to show the identify of persons entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; (4). Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Montaleine purchase; (5) Documents sufficient to show each date during which Montalcino purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (6) Any and all email correspondence regarding the Montalcino purchase; (7) Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase of 233 cases of Michael Skurnik Wines, shipped on or about 8/21/13, Invoice number 1-873889 (“Skurnik Wine purchase”); Documents sufficient to show date and time of date entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication 4 ‘Too! (*MWCT”) regardi ewsi9t(8) Documents sufficient to show the identity of persons entering data into the MWCT system: (9) Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the Skumnik Wine purchase; (10) Documents sufficient to show each date during which the Skurniic Wine purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (11). Any and all email correspondence regarding the Skcurnik Wine purchase; (12) Copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether in paper or electronic form, that relate to the purchase Col D’Orcia wine invoiced on or about 4/11/13, invoice rrumber 3154852 (“the D'Orcia Purchase,””); (13) Documents sufficient to show date and time of data entered into the Merchant Wholesaler Communication Tool (‘MWCT?) regarding the D’Orcia purchase; (14) Documents sufficient to show the identify of persons entering data regarding the Montalcino purchase; (15) Screen shots of all entries made into MWCT regarding the D’Orcia purchase; (16) Documents sufficient to show each date during which D’Orcia purchase inventory was advertised to the public on your website and any other publication; (17) Any and all email correspondence regarding the D'Orcia purchase; (18) All documents showing your corporate structure, including organizational charts; (19) GENERAL REQUEST: Copies of all wholesaler invoices from the time period of March 1, 2013 until the present; ‘TAKE NOTICE that false swearing or failure to comply with this Subpoena Duces Tecum is punishable as a contempt of Court. WITNESS, Margarita Marsico, Associate General Counsel, New York State Liquor Authority, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, New York 10027, this 16th day of August, 2013, Maieadjta Marsico, Esq. NYS Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, New York 10027 (212) 961-8318 ewsi92Mai Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:06 PM To: ‘smay@linnan-fallon.com* Subject: FW; Empire Wine and Spits - August 9 interviews Dear Mr. May, This will confirm yesterday's conversation in which you advised Messrs, Morey and Byron will nat be produced for the interview or the demonstration. | understand the employees are reluctant to be interviewed, We will lake your client’s hon production of these employees under advisement, We will appear at the licensed premises on August 9" and expect to have a person knowledgeable with the systerns available to answer our questions. You have indicated Mr. Junco has the ability to demonstrate the system and answer all questions. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel ‘New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mallto:stmay@linnan-fallon,com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:48 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Margarita, Please see attached. Shawn Fror Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:49 PM ‘To: Shawn May Subject: Empire Wine and Spirits ~ August 9 interviews Dear Mr. May, Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [malto:Margarita.Marsioo@sla.ny.aov} ewsi03| write in follow up to my July 29" letter to confirm Messrs. Morey and Byron will be available to demonstrate the systems and for the interviews. Thanks for your cooperation, Sincerely, ‘Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewsiaMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita, ‘We have Dan's subpoena - we accept service of the subpoena. Is this sufficient for you? Shawa From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [maiito:Margarita.Marsico@sla.ny. gov} Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM To: Shawn May ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finelli’s notes when he went to the premises on August 9", he was told Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and Is “never there.” id that Mr. Byron took the day offon Friday. You have indicated this is not the case, Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico ‘Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ath Floor New York, New York 10027 Tek: (212) 961-8318 Fave (212) 961-8316 ews195Marsico, Margarita (SLA) - ae Shavin May Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:50 PM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Grad did say 9-5 when | asked him for the hours but didn't specifically ask him where ... my bad. 'm trying to get a hold of Brad right now to confirm work location From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {mailto:Margarita.Marsico@sla.ny.c0v} Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM To: Shavn May ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spitits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finell’s notes when he went to the premises on August 9”, he was told Dan Byron is @ programmer who never works at the premises, and is “never there.” ‘You have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr, Byran took the day off on Friday. Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor . . New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 9641-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewsi96Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 224 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes, Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "Marsico, Margarita (SLA)” wrote: Dear Mr. May, Mr, Byron waives personal service of the personal subpoena? Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ‘th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto;stmay@linnan-falk Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita, : 7 We have Dan's subpoena - we accept service of the subpoena. Is this sufficient for you? Shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita,Marsico@sla.ny.gov} Sentz Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM To: Shawn May Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finelli's notes when he went to the preniises an August 9”, he was told Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and is “never there.” You have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr. Byron took the day off na Friday, mises fo accept service nt the personal subpoena touay. 1 Please recoatien he will Be present at they ewsi97incerety, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquer Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, th Floor Hew York, New York L0027 Tels (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewsto8Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:50 PM Tot Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Brad did say 9-5 when Lasked him Ine the hours but {didn't specifically ask him where». .sny bad, mv trying to get a hold of Brad right now to contirrn work location Front: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Finale : Margarita, Marsico@sia.ny,q0V] ‘Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 ‘To: Shawn May ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits ~ Service of Subpoena on Dan Byton bear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finell's notes when he went to the premises on August 9", he was told Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and is “never there.” You have indicated this is nat the case, and that Mr. Byron took the day off on Friday Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margatita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961.8316 ewsisaMarsico, Margarita (SLA) = SSSLESSESEEUEICHEI Shawn May Tuesday, September 03, 2013 2:14 PM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Empire Wine and Spirits Letter to Margarita Marisco requesting adjournment.doc Margarita, Please see attached regarding the September 10, 2013 meeting, Shawn ‘Shawn T. May Linnan & Fallon, LLP 61 Columbia Street, Suite 300 Albany, New York 12210 (518) 449-5400 ews200Marsico, Margarita (SLA) eee From: Manning, Ethan (SLA) Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:35 PM To: Shawn May Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margatita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: RE Me May We request copies of all invoices documenting sales made by Empire Wine & Spirits to purchasers outside of New York State for the following periods: January 2012 January 2013, Please ensure we have these documents no later than February 18, 2014, ‘Thank you, Ethan P. Manning Investigator ‘Wholesale Bureau New York State Liquor Authority Alfred €. Smith Olfice Building 80 South Swan St. Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210-8002 Telephone: 518-474-0386 Fax: 518-402-4148 manning@sh ny. BOW, Fws201Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Shawn May __ Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:46 PM Manning, Ethan (SLA) Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE Ethan, We will get started on it right away. Is this part af the prior investigation oF is it something else you guys are fooking into? And just to clarify - you are only looking for those two manths specifically? shawn Shawn 1 May Linn & Fallon LP 61 Columbia Siwet Mbany. N.Y. 1 FIRS) Fron: Manning, Ethan (SLA) [mailto:Ethan.Mannina@@sta,ry.qov] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:35 PM To: Shawn May ei Savile, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (sta) Subject: RE: Mr. May ‘We request copies of alt invoices documenting sales made by Empire Wine & Spirits to purchasers outside of New York State for the following pertods: January 2012 January 2013 Please ensure we have these documents no later than February 18, 2014. Thank you, Ethan ?. Manning hvestigator ; Whotosale Rurean ews202lew York State Liquar Autnonty teed E Snuth Office Buiting, °G South Swan St, Suite 300 shany, AY 12210-3002 Pofephone: $18-174.0386 Pax 518-402-4148, w5203Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Twescioy, February 04, 2014 607 PM Shawn May; Manning, Ethan (SLA) Saville; Dennis (SLA) Empire Wine and Liquors Dear Mr. May, This request is part of our earlier investigation. Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New Yark, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May (mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:46 PM ‘To: Manning, Ethan (SLA) Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Ethan, We will get started on it right away. fs this part of the prior investigation or is it something else you guys are looking into? And just to clarify - you are only looking for those two months specifically? shawn ‘Shawn 7. May Linnan & Fallon LLP 51 Columbia Street Albany, N.Y, 12310 51849-5400 mw Jinnan-fallon com From: Manning, Ethan (SLA) [malito:€than.Mannina@sla.ny.gov} Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:35 PM To: Shawn May Ews204Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) We request copies of all invoices documenting sales made by Empire Wine & Spirits to purchasers outside of New York. State for the following periods: January 2012 January 2013, Please ensure we have these documents no later than February 18, 2014. Thank you, Ethan P. Manning Investigator Wholesale 8ureau New York State Liquor Authority Alfred €, Smith Office Building 80 South Swan St, Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210-8002 ‘Telephone: 518-474-0386 Fax: 518-402-4148 Etha .manning@sla.ny.Zov Ews205Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:02 AM To: Manning, Ethan (SLA) cc Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE ethan, Mr. Junco informs me he delivered the requested documents to the Authority yesterday afternoon, Could you please confiren receipt of the requested items? Thanks, Shawn ‘Shawn T. May Linnan & Fallon LLP 41 Columbia Steet Albanyy No. 12210 518-449-5400 From: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1: 35 PM To: Shawn May Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: We request copies of all invoices documenting sales made by Empire Wine & Spirits to purchasers outside of New York State for the following periods: January 2012 January 2013 Please ensure we have these documents no later than February 18, 2014, Thank you, than P. Manning lavestigator Vholesale Sueeay ews206A {45 Bast Capital Avene Pieree, South Dakota 57501-3185 Department of Phone: 605-773-3014 fevene B Base 5-773-6729 ‘egulation Aprit 26, 2013 Empire Wine 1440 Central Ave Albany, NY 12205 Re; Alcohol Shipments to South Dakota Consumers To-Whom it May.Concern: 7 It has come to the attention of the South Dakota Department of Revenue (the “Department”) that your establishment may be shipping alcoholic beverages to South Dakota consumers in violation of slate law, According to information obtained from http://yww.empirewine.convshipping/, ‘your establishment allows, of doesn’t specifically prohibit, alcoho! shipments to South Dakota, Pursuant to SDCL 35-12A-5, its illegal (0 sell or ship aleoholie beverages directly to South Dakota residents. ‘The Department advises that you immediately fake any and all necessary meaautos to provent sales and shipments to South Dakota residents, Should you fail to do so and sales and shipments occur in the future; you may be committing a Class | misdemeanor, punishable by up (0 one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both, Please conduct yaurself accordingly. Best regards, UM Michael S. How Property and South Dakof Abell, Ditector cial Taxes Division ‘Department of Reventie wwe uvidrr ews207oa York State Liquor Awmnorty sired &, sinikh Office Bullding South Swan St. Suite 900 Sibany, NY 12220-8002 slephone: § 138-474-0386 oye: SL8-102-4 U8 “than. manaing@ sla.ny.g0v ews208Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:07 PM havin May; Manning, Ethan (SLA) Saville, Dennis (SLA) Subject: Empite Wine and Liquors oear Wie, May, this request is part of our earlier investivation, targarita Marsico Assaciate General Counsel ew York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ath Floar ‘New York, New York 10027 Fel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:46 PM To: Manning, Ethan (SLA) Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Ethan, ‘We will get started on it right away. Is this part of the prior investigation or is it something else you guys are looking into? And just to clarify - you are only looking for those two months specifically? Shawn Shawn T. May innan & Fatlon (LP 61 Columbia Suet Abany. N.Y. 12210) 18-49-5400 2xww.linnan fallon.com Fromm Manning, Ethan (SIA) {mailto:Ethan, Manning‘@sla.ny.aov} Sent Tuestiay, February 04, 2014 1:35 PM To: Shawn May Ews208ez Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: RE: Mr. May We request copies of all invoices documenting sales made by Empire Wine & Spirits to purchasers outside of New York State for the following periods: January 2012 January 2013 Please ensure we have these documents no later than February 18, 2014, Thank you, than P. Manning investigator ‘Wholesale Bureau Mew York State Liquor Authority Aifred €. smith Office Building 180 South Swan St. Suite 900 Albany, MY 12210-8002 Telephone: 518-474-0386 Fax: 518-402-4008, Ethan manning@sla.ny.gov ews210Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:12 PM Shown May ‘Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) RE; Empire Wine and Spirits - Out of State Sales Dear Mr. May, Hope you've been well ln connection with your recent production of records regarding out of state sales, the Authority requests you produce all Cease and Desist letters issued by other states, We understand from Mr. Nolan several states issued letters, including the State of Texas, ‘Ne would appreciate it if you would produce the fetters no later than March 19" Thank you, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate Generat Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, Ath Floor New York, Slew York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fox: (212) 961-8316 Prom: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:24 Pit ‘Fo: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID “Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Mr. May, Mr. Byron waives personal service af the personal subpoena? slangarita Marsico ‘ssorlate General Counsel ews2t1"York Stare Liquor Authority 27 Lenox Avenue, Ath Floor few York, New York 10027 fot: (212/961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 om) Fram: Shawn May [malto:stmayealinnan-fallon Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM ‘Fo: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine ard Spints - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita, We have Dan's subpoena - we accept service of the subpoena. is this sufficient For you? shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto: Margarita, tarsieo@sla.ny gov Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM To: Shawn May Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron ear Mr. May, Accoring to Investigator Finelli’s notes when he went to the premises on August 9", he was tald Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and is "never there.” ‘iou have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr. Byron took the day off on Friday. Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena taday, Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita-Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor Mew York, New Yark 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ews2t2From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:12 PM To: ‘Shawn May’ ‘Cc: Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Emplre Wine and Spirits - Out of State Sales Fir, May, tone you've heen well 2n connection with your recent praduction of records regarding aut of state sales, the Authority requests you produce all Cease and Desist letters issued by other states, We understand from Mr, Nolan several states issued letters, including the State of Texas: We would appreciate it if you would produce the letters no later than March 19°, Thank you, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ath Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8348 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:24 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spitits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID “Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Mr. May, tr. Byron waives personal service of the personal subpoena? Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel sw York State Liquor Authority 7 Lenox avenue, Ath Floor slew Yark, New York 40027 Fal: (212) 961-8318, Fv 212) 4618 516 ews213From: Shawn May [»alto:stmaysinnan-iallon.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Sphrts - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron saargarita, Me have Dan's subpoena - we accept service uf the subpoena, ts this suificient for you? Shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita.Marsicodsla.ny.c0v] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM ‘Tor Shawn May ‘Subjects RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr, May, According to investigator Finell’s notes when he went to the premises on August 9", he was told Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and is “never there,” ‘You have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr. Byron took the day off on Friday. Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today, Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ews214Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Monday, March 17, 2014 10:20 AM Shawn May ‘Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: Authority to Ship Wine Out of State - Empire Wine Dear Mr. May, 2¥e want to confirm which states your client has obtained permits/licenses to ship his product to, The below email chain nielieates New Hampshire and South Dakota, Is this aa exhaustive list? Please provide a copy of whatever licenses/permits Mr. lunco has to ship to other states. I request that you provide the information by the end of the week, March 24, 2024 | you have any questions or need additional time to comply with this request, you may contact me at (212) 961-8318 Sincerely, Margarita Marsico From: Shawn May (mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:16 AM ‘To: Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: RE: re Ethan, In South Dakota Empire is licensed to engage in business as a retailer. in New Hampshire Empire has a Direct Shipper Permit, ts that the kind of information you're looking for? _ shawn From: Manning, Ethan (SLA) {mailto:Ethan Manning @ska.ny.cov] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:36 PM ‘To: Shawn May Cc: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: re Mr. May, Is Mr. Juno current lcansod asa retailer, suppl or manufacturer of alecholin any other stalo? Please advise Thank you, Ethan P. Manning Investigator ‘Wholesale Bureau New York State Liquor Authority Ews215Afred &. Smith Office Building 80 South Swan St. Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210-8002 ‘Telephone: 518-474-0386 Fax: 518-402-4148, shan manning? sla.ny.gov ews2i6Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:24 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Authority to Ship Wine Out of State - Empire Wine Attachments: Letter to Margarita Marsico with requested docs.pdf ‘aargarita, Sttached please find a response to your March 13, 2014 and March 17, 2024 requested. shawn shawn f. May [inna & Fallen LLP 51 Columbia Street Atbany, NY. 2210) SisH9-s400) ‘www linnan-tallon.com, From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) (mailto:Maraarita Marsico@sla.ny.ov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:20 AM ‘To: Shawn May ‘Ce: Manning, Ethan (SLA) ‘Subject: Autliority to Ship Wine Out of State - Empire Wine Dear Mr. May, We want to confirm which states your client has obtained permits/licenses to ship his product to. The below email chain indicates New Hampshire and South Dakota. is this an exhaustive list? Please pravide a capy of whatever licenses/permits Mr. Junco has to ship to other states. J request that you provide the information by the end of the week, March 24, 2014, Ifyou have any questions or need additional time to comply with this request, you may contact me at (212) 961-8318 Sincerely, Margarita Marsico ews2i7LINNAN & FALLON, LLP : saws tngwane Attorneys at Law (LENS EALLS OFFICE _ JAMES D. 11 61 Columbia Street, Suite 300 S18 ee CHARLBNE 8, FALLON Albany, New York 1221022736 HUDSONOFFICE —_____ (1) 3289400 (518) 449.5400 CATSKILL OFFICE, Suge Mae ‘Tolefix No. (518) 449-5262 (96-3000 ret it fo come ‘email levine allen com March 18, 2014 VIA E-MAIL: margarita. marsico@sla.ny,goy New York State Liquor Auth Margatita Matsico, Esq, 80 South Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany, New York 12210 iy Re: Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC Serial No.: 2137544 Dear Ms. Marsico: In response to your March 13, 2014 and March 17, 2014 demands attached as Exhibit “A” please find a letter fiom the South Dakota Depariment of Revenue & Regulation in regard to shipments of alcoholic beverages by Empire. Also attached as Exhibit “B” are the New ‘Hampshire and North Dakota Ditect Shipper Petmits, These are the only records in Empire's possession that ate responsive to your demands. [realize my prior e-mail indicated that Empire had a direct shipper permit from New Hampshire and South Dakota, however, [ was mistaken in that the permit was actually issued by ‘North Dakota, The error was mine, Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the above, Very truly yours, pepeseeeceaaaat stan ne aad Bnofosure co; Empire Wine & Spin LLC ews2i8EXHIBIT ANORTH DAKOTA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DIRECT SHIPPING PERMIT NORTH DAKOTA OFFICE OF STATE TAX COMMISSIONER: For Calendar Year: 2014 Proper application having been made, this permit is issued pursuant to North Dakota Century Code § 5-01-16 to: EMPIRE WINE & LIQUOR State Permit Number: 90670 EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS LLC 1440 CENTRAL AVE STE 3A Date Issued: Jan-08-2014 ALBANY NY 12205-5118 This permit expires on Dec-31-2014 Ryan Rauschenberger State Tax Commissioner ews220State of New Hampsnire == . ° ral SESSS==== Liquor Commission ed | EMPIRE WINE LLC | EMPIRE WINE LLC 1440 CENTRAL AVE | ALBANY NY 12205 i DIRECT SHIPPER PERMIT . BEVERAGE/WINE/LIQUOR icense No. 8083333 Enectve Date: 11/01/2013 eins. 10/31/2014 ied and is subject to the conditions prescribed in Title XIII of the revised statutes annotated and regulations enacted by the commission thereunder. This license is effective for the period specified above unless sooner revoked and is not transferable. State Liquor Commission & Ho | Joseph W. Mollica, Chairman Michtel R. Milligan, CommiSsisher This document and any addendum must be conspicuously displayed on the described premises. AUDIT NO, 257788 ews221EXHIBIT BMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Seni Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:08 AM To: Shawn May Subject: FW: Empire Wine - Out of State Sales ear Mr. May, thank you tor providing permits regarding South Dakota and New Hampshire, F-yanted to contirm there are ao Cease and Desist letters or letters of warning issued to your client by any states, Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York £0027 Tel: (212} 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, Match 13, 2014 12:12 PM. ‘To: 'Shawn May’ €c: Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) Subjects RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Out of State Sales Dear Mr. May, : : Hope you've heen well, In connection with your recent production of records regarding out of state sales, the Authority requests you produce all Cease and Desist letters issued by other states. We understand fram Mr. Nolan several states issued letters, including the State of Texas. We would appreciate it if you would produce the letters'vo later than March 19". Thank you, Margarita Marsico sdargacita Marsico Associate General Counsel slew York State Liquor Authority ews223LF Lanne denna, dub Flnor ooy eck Mle 400k LOT fo (2124 9618313 vx: (212) 981 3316 From: Shawn May [maite:stmayeinnan-fallon.com| Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:24 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID “Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Mr. May, ‘Mr. Byron waives personal service of the personal subpoena? Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 : (212) 961-8318 Fax: (242) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spitts ~ Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita; We have Dan's subpoena - we accept service of the subpoena. Is this sufficient far you? Shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Maraarita,. Marsico@sia.ny.gov] ‘Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM ‘Yo: Shawn May ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, Acrording to Investigator Finell’s notes when tre went to the premises on August 9", he was told Dan Byron is a programmer who never works at the premises, and is “newer there.” aug hae inuficated this is ok the case, andl shat Mr. Syran took the day oif 90 Friday, ews2asase reconfirm he iil be nnesearar che premises €a aceanc service at the personal suopoena toilay. nearly, Aargarita Marsica Jorgarita Marsico sociate General Counsel ‘ew York’State Liquor Authority HT Lenox Avenue, ath Floor lew York, New York 10027 I: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ews2asMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Shawn May Sent: ‘Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10.09 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine - Out of State Sales slargarita, fhe cease and desist letter rom South Dakota that is attached to our response is the only letter Empire has a record of. shawn stun. May ‘innan & Fallon LLP 51 Columbia Street Albany, N.Y, 12240) She449.5 100 ww linnan-falton. com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {matlto: Margatita, Marsico@sla.ny.qov] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:08 AM To: Shawn May Subject: FW: Empire Wine - Out of State Sales Dear Mr. May, ' ‘Thank you for providing permits regarding South Oakota and New Hampshire. | wanted to confirm there are no Céase and Desist letters or letters of warning issued to your client by any states. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel ew York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor sew York, New York 10027 Fol (212) 961-8318 vm: (212) 961.8316 Ew5226Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 9:59 AM To: Manning, than (SLA) Subject: AW: Empire Wine - Out of State Sates mn From: Shawn May [maito:stmayalinnan-fallon.com} Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:09 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine - Out of Slate Sales ‘Margarita, the cease and desist letter from South Dakota that is attached to our response is the only letter Empire has a recard of. Shawn Shawn. May inna & Paton LLP 51 Columbia Street Many. N.Y. 12210 518 HY-5400 sww.finnan-fallon.com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita,Marsico@sla.ny.cov} Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:08 AM To: Shawn May Subject: FW: Empire Wine - Out of State Sales Dear Mr. May, Thank you for providing permits regarding South Dakota and New Hampshire. | vanted to confirm there are no Cease and Desist letters or letters of warning issued to your client by any states. Sincerely, sdargarita Marsico Margarita tarsico \ssociate General Counsel Ews227any york State Liquor Auhonty Lenox Avenue, [th Floor wr York, New York 10027 af: (212) 961-8318 x: 212} 961-8316 From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:12 PM Tor 'Shawn May! ‘Cc: Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Gut of State Sales Dear Mr. May, tope you've been well In connection with your recent production of records regarding out of state sales, the Authority requests you produce all Cease and Desist letters issued by other states. We understand from Mr. Nolan several states issued letters, including, he State of Texas, ‘We would appreciate it iF yau would produce the letters no later than March 19°. Thank you, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel Mew York State Liquor Authority 327 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8348 . . Fax: (212) 961-8316 7 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnap-fallon,com| Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:24 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes, Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Mr. May, eA, Byron waives personal secvice OF the personal subpoena? Jargarita Macsicp ewszeasociace Genaral Couuser e9y York state Liquor Authusity V7 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor law fork, Hew York 10027 hs (212) 961-8318 as: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay.élinnan-falion.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita, We have Dan's subpoena - we accept service of the subpoena, Is this sufficient for you? shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita,Marsico@sla.ny.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM To: Shawn May Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finell's notes when he went to the premises on August 9", he was told Dan Byronis a programmer who never works at the premises, and is “never there.” ‘You have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr, Byron took the day off on Friday. Please reconfirm he will he present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today, Sincerely, ‘Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ath Floor New Yark, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 ewsx29Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:57 PM. To: “Shawn May! Ce: Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine ~ Out of State Seles Dear Mr. May, |Lam writing to confirm your client has not obtained any additional permits aside from North Dakota and New Hampshire. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico From: Shavin May {inalto:simay@iinnan-fallon.com) Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:09 AM Tot Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine - Out of State Sales Margarita, The cease and desist letter from South Dakota that is attached to our response is the only letter Empire has a record of, shawn % Fallon LLP 61 Columb Albany, N.Y. 12210 . . S18449-5400 aww.linnan-fallon,com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {mailto:Mararita. Marsico@sta.ny.gov} Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:08 AM ‘To: Shawn May Subject: FW: Empire Wine ~ Out of State Sales Dear tar, May, Thank you fir providing permits regarding South Rakota and Mew Hampshire t ews230‘anted to) anti there are no Cease aad Desist let rarsar eerrers oF warding rssued to Yeni eHNt hy any stares, ineorely, Jargarita Marsico slargarita Marsico ‘ssociate General Counsel lew York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, sith Flaor Hew York, New York 0027 Fal {212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1; To: ‘Shawn May? Ce: Manning, Ethan (SLA); Saville, Dennis (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Out of State Sales » PM Dear Mr. May, Hope you've been well, In connection with your recent production of records regarding out of state sales, che Authority requests you produce all Cease and Desist letters issued by other states. We understand from Mr. Nolan several states issued letters, including the State of Texas, We would appreciate it if you would produice the letters no later than March 19°. Thank you, Margarita Marsico ‘Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor ‘New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 962-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316. From: Shawn May [maito:stmay@linnan-fallon.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:24 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Yes, Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID ews2at"Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Me, May, Ir. Byron waives personal service of the personal subpoena? Margarita Marsica ssochite General Counsel Hew York State Liquor Authority 27 Lenox Avenue, 4th Floor lew York, New Yark 10027 Tek: (242) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailta:stmaytitinan-fallon.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:18 PM ‘Fos Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Margarita, We have Dan's subpoena -we accept service of the subpoena. Is this sufficient for you? Shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailto:Margarita.Marsico@sla.ny.cov] Senti Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:00 PM ‘To: Shawn May ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - Service of Subpoena on Dan Byron Dear Mr. May, According to Investigator Finell’s notes when he went to the premises on August 9%, he was told Dan Byron is a programmer wlio never works at the premises, and is “never there.” You have indicated this is not the case, and that Mr. Byron took the day off on Friday. Please reconfirm he will be present at the premises to accept service of the personal subpoena today. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel Hew York State Liquor Authority 517 Lenox Avenue, “ith Floor Hew York, Slew York lu027 212) 9618318 Pye: 7 2) 968316 ews232ews233From: Shawn May [matito:simnay sallon.com Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:16 AM To: Manning, Ethan (SLA) in South Dakota Exjpire 1s heensed to engage in business as 4 rerailer, In New Hampshire Emoue has a Dieect shipper Permit. Is that the kind of information you re (ooking for? hawn From: Manning, Ethan (SLA) [maltostthan Mannina@sta.ny.cov! Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:36 PM To: Shawn May Ce: Saville, Dennis (SLA); Manning, Ethan (SLA) Subject: re Me. May, {5 Mir. Juno currently licensed as a retailer, supplier or manufacturer of alcohol in any other state? Please advise, Thank you, Ethan P, Manning investigator Wholesale Bureau New York State Liquor Authority Alfred E. Smith Otfice Building 80 South Swan St. Suite 900 ‘Albany, NY 12210-8002 ‘Telephone: 518-474-0386 Fax: 518-402-4148 ethan.nanning@sla.ny.aov EWs234Shawn May ‘Tuesday, September 03, 2013 2:14 PM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Empite Wine and Spirits Attachments: Letter to Margarita Marisco requesting adjournment.doc Margarita, Please see attached regarding the September 10, 2013 meeting, shawn Shawn T, May Linnan & Fallon, LLP 61 Columbia Stret, Suite 300 Albany, New York 12210 (518) 449-5400 ews235LINNAN & FALLON, LL Attorneys at Law GLENS FALLS ORFICH JAMES D. LINNAN 61 Columbia Street (518) 798-1400 Albany, New York | HUDSON OFFICE PeeeeeeeSe (1) 328.0100, (518) 449.5400 “CATSKILLOFFICE ane ay Telefax No. (518) 449-5262, (518) 949-9400 ‘wanna, com "ana awit com September 3, 2013 VIA E-MAIL: Margarita marisco@sla.ny. gov AND U.S. MAIL New York State Liquor Authority Margarita Marisco, Esq. 317 Lenox Avenue, 4" Floor New York, New York 10027 Re: Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC Seriat No.: 2137544 Dear Ms, Matisco: Please accept this request to adjoum the Subpoena retum date currently scheduled for September 10, 2013 to October 1, 2013. Ihave a scheduling conflict on September 10" as [am scheduled to be in front of the full board on another matter and I have a hearing scheduled at the Authority in the afternoon as well. Additionally, Mr. Junco needs mote time to gather the voluminous records requested for production. Very truly yours, Is! Sonn TM SHAWN T. MAY cc: Brad Junco ews236ica, Margarita (SLA) From: McLean, Brian (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:46 AM stmay@linnan-fallon.cor Saville, Dennis (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY Attachments: EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS LLC REQUEST LETTER. docx Mr, Shawn May, Please see attached. Original request letter was sent out to your client, Bradley Junco, owner of Empire Wine & Spirits LUC via certified mail today Wednesday February 19, 2014. BRIAN J MCLEAN WHOLESALE INVESTIGATOR NYS LIQUOR AUTHORITY ALERED E SMITH BUILDING 80 SOUTH SWAN ST SUITE 900 ALBANY, NY 12210-8002 TELEPHONE: 518-474-4857 Fax: 518-402-4148, EMAIL: brian,mclean@sla.ny.gov ews237DENNIS ROSEN ANDREW M. CUOMO srara.or vom, aman “ovention SXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, GANIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY eee ‘ma slay. gov February 19, 2014 To: Mr. Bradley Junco Empire Wine & Spirits LLC 1440 Central Ave Albany, NY 12205 Re: Serial # 2137544 Dear Mr. Junco, Please produce copies of any and all documents in your possession, whether they exist in paper or electronic format, pertaining to your purchase of 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda from Martin Scott Wines, Ltd. during the period from January 1, 2013 until December 31, 2013. This product is identified by Martin Scott Wines, Ltd as product number 11402111 This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all emails to, from or among your employees, including any emails sent to, of received from, Martin Scott's employees, as well as any emails sent to, or received from, ather retailers, concerning your purchase, or possible purchase, of the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda, as well as any intemal memoranda or reports, or any other correspondence in any manner concerning the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda, which documents were created, transmitted, received or obtained by you between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. You are also requested to identity by name all Martin Scott Wines, Ltd. solicitors who took orders from you, and/or discussed with any employee or principal of yours, the purchase by you af the 2011 Tournon Shiraz Mathilda at any time during 2013, Documents responsive lo this demand may be submitted to the Offices of the New ‘fork State Liquor Authority in Albany, NY, to the attention of investigator Brian McLean. ews238Please provide this requested documentation by no later than Friday March 7, 2014. Please send this request to the attention of Investigator McLean of the NYSLA Wholesaler Bureau located at 80 South Swan Street Suite 900 Albany, NY 12210. If you have any questions you can contact me at 518-474-4857 or at my email address Brian. Mclean @sia.ny.gov. Investigator Mclean, Wholesale Bureau NYS Liquor Authority ews239Marsico, Margarita (SILA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:06 PM ‘smay@linnan-fallon.com* FW: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Dear Mr. May, This will contim yesterday's conversation in which you advised Messrs, Morey and Byron will not be produced for the interview or the demonstration. | understand the employees are refuctant to be interviewed...We will take your client’s ‘on production of these employees under advisement, ‘We will appear at the licensed premises on August 9" and expect to have a person knowledgeable with the systems available to answer our questions, You have indicated Mr. Junco has the ability to demonstrate the system and answer all questions sincerely, Margarita Marsico 4 : Margarita Marsico Associate General Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, Ath Floor New York, New Yark 10027 Fel; (212) 961-8318 Fax: (2:12) 961-8316 From: Shawn May [mailto:stmay@linnan-fallon.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 4:48 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: RE: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Margarita, Please see attached, shawn From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [inalto:Margarite.Marsico@sla.ny.qov] Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 2:49 PM ‘Tot Shawn May ‘Subject: Empire Wine and Spirits - August 9 interviews Dear Mir. May, ews240| write in follow up to my July 23" letter to confirm Messrs. Morey and Byron will be available to demonstrate the systems and for the interviews. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico ‘ulargarita Marsico Associate Generat Counsel New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue, ath Floor New York, New York 10027 Tel: (212) 961-8318 Fax: (212) 961.8316 ews2atMars Margarita (SLA) Nolan, William Monday, May 19, 2014 4:08 PM Flug, Jacqueline (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) FW: Empire Wine & Liquor 202¥36/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS Counselors, ‘When we spoke last week | mentioned that UPS was taking the position that shipping within New York State is now illegal. Below is proof of UPS's position. UPS is demanding that Empire cease and desist shipping within NYS or have its account cancelled. Is there any guidance from NYSLA on this issue? ---+ Forwarded message From: Date: Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM. Subject: Empire Wine & Liquor 202 Y36/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS To: brad@empirewine.com Co: adami@empirewine.com Brad, : Theard you reccived a call last week from UPS Corporate Regulated Goods. I'm sorry that you will no longer be able to ship within NYS. [ attached a copy of the signed "Agreement for Approved Wine Shippers" that Empire Wine signed in 2006, {tem #3 in the agreement specifies Shipper Responsibility For Compliance with Applicable Law. NY State Law is prohibiting retailers from shipping wine within the state to consumers. As a result Empire Wine needs {o cease wine shipping within NYS immediately. Failure to do so will cause an audit and cancelation of the entire account. Thave time this aftemoon to discuss this further via phone of I can stop by petsonally tomorrow aftemoon. Let me know what works best for you. : ~sitl Iill R. Leto Senior Account Manager Business Development UPS Worldwide Services 518-527-5473 Thanks, Brad ews24aswww.empirewine.com 877-7-WINE-L ‘ ews2asMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolen, William Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:27 PM To: Flug, Jacqueline (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine & Liquor 20236/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS Thank you. # will touch base with UPS and see what the company wants to do. Will Nolan { Partner Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP One Commerce Plaza { Albany | New York | 12260 || $18.887.7773 | f | $18,487.77 Je] wmolan@woh.com | w | www.woh.com From: Flug, Jacqueline (SLA) {imailto:Jacqueline.Flua@sla.ny.gov] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:26 PM To: Nolen, William; Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine & Liquor 202736/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS ‘Will - NYS Package stores may ship to customers within NYS. | have no idea what UPS is speaking about, You can give them my number, or | can give the person below a cal but the earliest | can do that will be tomorrow after our Board meeting, Let me know. Jaci Jacqueline P. Flug General Counsel - New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, New York 10027 (212) 961-8342 From: Nolan, Wiliam [malito:WNolan@woh.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:08 PM To: Flug, Jacqueline (SLA); Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: FW: Empire Wine & Liquor 202736/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS Counselors, When we spoke last week | mentioned that UPS was taking the position that shipping within New York State is now illegal. Below is proof of UPS's position, UPS is demanding that Empire cease and desist shipping within NYS ar have its account cancelled. Is there any guidance from NYSLA on this issue? - Forwarded message From: Date: Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:23 PM Subject: Empire Wine & Liquor 202Y36/W95778 - prohibited shipping within NYS To: bradi@empirewine.com : adam @empirewine.com Ews244Brad, T heard you received a call last week from UPS Corporate Regulated Goods. I'm sorry that you will no longer be able to ship within NYS. 1 attached a copy of the signed "Agreement for Approved Wine Shippers" that Empire Wine signed in 2006. Item #3 in the agreement specifies Shipper Responsibility For Compliance with Applicable Law, NY State Law is prohibiting retailers from shipping wine within the state (o consumers. As a result Empire Wine needs to cease wine shipping within NYS immediately. Failure to do so will cause an audit and cancelation of the entire account, Ihave time this afternoon to discuss this fiuther via phone or I can stop by personally tomorrow afternoon. Let me know what works best for you. lilt Jill R. Leto Senior Account Manager Business Development UPS Worldwide Services 518-527-5473, ‘Thanks, Brad www.empirewine.com esasMarsico, Margarita (SLA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:24 PM ‘Nolan, wil RE: Empire Gear Mr. Nolan, Ii send copies of the documents via email today, { will also send another flash drive overnight to. your Albany address, Your address has been corrected in our systems. ‘Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will [mailto:WNolanévoh.com) ‘Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:43 PM ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) ‘Subject: Empire Ms. Marsico: Could you email me a set of the documents that you mailed out regarding this matter? It appears they went to our Hudson Office, which does not routinely have any staff. Thanks, will Will Nolan | Whi Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 {0 [ 518.487.7773 | F| 918.487.7777 [e|'wnoland@woh.com | ws | waw.ioh.com eman Osterman & Hanna LLP ews2i6Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: "Nolan, wil Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartl pdf; EmpireNOH0924.paf Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews2a7Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:00 PM To: “Nolan, wil! Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpiteDiscPartll pdf Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews2a8Ma Margarita (SLA) Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Wednesday, September 24, 2014 601 PM. ‘Notan, Will Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartil pat Dear Mr. Nolan, Part lll of discovery. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews249Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: ‘Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 PM To: "Nolan, Will! Subject: Empire Part IV Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartV.pdt Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. | sent flash drive via fed ex overnite. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico ‘Margarita Marsico, Esq. ‘Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews250Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Fron, Nolan, Will Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:50 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Re: Empire Part lV Discovery Thank you On Sep 24, 2014, at 6:00 PM, "Marsico, Margarita (SLA)" wrote: Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. | sent flash drive via fed ex overnite. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews2s1Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: ‘Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:46 AM To: “Nolan, Will” Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Dear Mr.Nolan, The attachment is the cover page of the discovery and the documents. Sincerely, ‘Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will [mailto:Woolan@woh.com) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:37 AM ‘To! Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Ms, Marsico, The notice of hearing makes reference to an attachment, but there Is no attachment. Can you please send that along. Thank you Will Nolan | Whiternan Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Allvany | New York | 12260 [0 | $18.487.7773 | {| 518.487.7777 |e { wnolan@woh.com | w { ywwew.weh,com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [maito:Margarita.Marsico@sla.ny.cov]—, : Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM . To: Nolan, Will Subject: Empire Discovery Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached, Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counset’s Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews2s2Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:59 AM Tor ‘Nolan, Will” Subject: Empire Wine & Spirits Case 88869 Attachments: Scan001.POF Dear Mr, Nolan, Attached are a copy of the instructions that were mailed to you and your client along with the Notice of Hearing, Thanks, Margarita Marsico ws253Mai Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:59 AM To: "Nolan, Will Subject: Empire Wine & Spirits Case 88869 Attachments: Scan00LPOF Dear Mr. Nolan, Attached are a copy of the instructions that were mailed to you and your client along with the Notice of Hearing. Thanks, Margarita Marsico ews254Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Wesinesday, September 24, 2014 2:43 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Empire Ms. Marsico: Could you email me a set of the documents that you mailed out regarding this matter? It appears they went to our Hudson Office, which does not routinely have any staff. Thanks, will Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LL? Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany { New York | 12260 J 0 | $18.487.7773 | | S18.487.777 Je} wnolan@woh.com { w | www.wobscom ews2ssMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:53 PM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Much appreciated. Thanks Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner Cone Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 | 04 $18.487.7773 | 11 518487.7777 Fe | wnolangwoh.com | w | swash com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {mailto:Margarita.Marsico@sla,ny. gov} Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:24 PM To; Noian, Wit Subject: RE: Empire Dear Mr. Nolan, Vil send copies of the documents via email today. 1 will also send another flash drive overnight to your Albany address. Your address has been corrected in our systems, Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will [mlto:WNolan@woh.com) ‘Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:43 PM. To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Empire ; Ms. Marsico: Could you email me a set of the documents that you mailed out regarding this matter? It appears they went to our Hudson Office, which does not routinely have any staff, Thanks, will Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 [0 | 518.487.7773 | f | 918.487.7777 |e] wnolan@woh,com | w | wuw.woh,com ews256,Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:37 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Ms. Marsico, The natice of hearing makes reference to an attachment, but there is no attachment, Can you please send that along. Thank you Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 [9 | $18.487.7773 | £ | 518.487.2777 Jef ynolan@woh.com | w | www.woh.com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [malto: Margarita. Marsico@sla.ny.gov) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: Nolan, Will ‘Subject: Empire Discovery Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counset’s Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel» 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews257Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:47 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE Empire Discovery Ob, no, I'm referring to the hold face print that says see attached for conditional no contest pleas, translators, adjournments, Somehow that’s missing Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 |o | $18.487.7773 | f | 518.487.9777 je] wnolan@woh.com | w | www.weh,com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mallto:Margarita. Marsico@sia.ny.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:46 AM To: Nolan, Will ‘Subject: RE: Empire Discovery bear Mr.Nolan, The attachment is the cover page of the discovery and the dacuments, sorely, ‘Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will [mailto:WNotan@wob.com} Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:37 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Ms. Marsico, The notice of hearing makes reference to an attachment, laut there is no attachment, Can you please send that along. Thank you Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Allsany | New York | 12260 fo | 518.087.7973 | F| 518.487.7777 [e| wnolan@woh.com | w | www.woh.com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mallto:Margarita, Marsico@sla,ny. ov] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: Nolan, Will ‘Subject: Empire Discovery Dear Mr. Nolen, ewsesaPlease see attached, Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10077 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316, ews2s9Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:59 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Wine & Spirits Case 88869 ‘Appreciated. Thanks! Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 Fo | $18.487.7773 | f | 518.487.7777 Le] wnolan@woh.com | w | www.woh.com --—Original Message: From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {mailto: Margarita. Marsico @sla.nv.gov| Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:59 AM To: Nolan, Will Subject: Empire Wine & Spirits Case 88869 Dear Mr. Nolan, Attached are a copy of the instructions that were mailed to you and your client along with the Notice of Heating, Thanks, Margarita Marsico ews260Mat Margarita (SLA) From: Gardner, Cartie Se Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:18 AM Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Nolan, Will Subject: Bradley A, Junco / Empire Wine & Spirits LLC (1998-2014 / Case No: 88869) Attachments: 10072014 to Marsico, M. Re Empire Wine pdf Attached is correspondence regarding the above-referenced matter. Carrie L. Gardner | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna 1p egal Secretary to Neil L. Levine, Esq, Alan J. Goldberg, Esq, William S. Nolan, Esa. ‘Jeanne F, Kroll, LUgation Paralegal One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 [0 | 818.487.7719 | f| 518.487.7777 Je | crardner@woh.com | w | www.woh.com This dleteonic trnsmision contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, which may ako be LIGALLY PRIVILGED and which tended only for dhe use of the esses) mame above. Ifyou ace mot the intended seipient of this transmission, or the employee oe wigan cesponsble fe the bfvery of ito the intended ecipien, yo are hereby notified that any dissemination copying. of this tems is pacha you have ec ‘his amsession in cron plese no by rkephone an esa the original tous a he owe sies via the US, Postl Service, Tank you ews261WHITEMAN ‘wien oan Actorneys at Law arther OSTERMAN | Someyiatts 8.46777 phe olaadiocom & HANNA ws ne Commerce Maa October 7, 2014 Albany, New York 12260 518.4877600 phone si8.a87 7777 Fax Vig Fels & Email (Margarita. Marsico@sla.ny.gov) Margarita Marsico Office of Counsel Division of Aleoholic Beverage Control 317 Lenox Avenue, 4" Floor New York, New York 10027 Re: Bradley A. Junco Empire Wine & Spirits LLC 1998-2014 / Case No.: 88869 Dear Ms. Marsi ‘The Notice of Heating in this matter indicates the date and time of hearing as October 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m, and the place of hearing as 317 Lenox Avenue, 4" Floor, New York, New ‘York 10027. [request that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled for a more convenient date and location. | will not be available on October 23 because I have a deposition in Kingston at 10:00 am that day, and will be seeing an otolic/eurologic surgeon at 3:00.p.m, in Albany that day as well. In addition, by letter dated September 26, I submitted a FOIL request fo SLA seeking 31 categories of documents that ate pertinent to issues in this matter. [will nced (o review SLA’s full and complete response to this FOUL request with my client sufficiently in advance of the hearing in order to present a proper defense, Unfortunately, SLA has indicated that its response to the FOIL request will not be available until October 24, the day after the heating is scheduled, For these reasons, an adjournment of the heating is necessary. We also object to the proposed location of the hearing in New York City, given that SLA’s New York City Office covers Zone | of SLA’s jurisdiction, i.e, the following counties: Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, and Westchester. As you know, Empire, its owner, ils attomeys, and its employees ae all located in SLA Zone 2, specifically in Albany New York, approximately 150 miles from the proposed location of the heating, Given that SLA has offices and staff located across the street ftom the location of my law firm and within only a few miles of Bmpize’s location, there Is no valid teason the hearing should take place in New York City. Therefore, we ask that the heating location be moved to Albany in ews252accordance with Administeative Procedures Act § 301 (“In fixing the time and place for hearings and oral argument, due regard shall be had for the convenience of the parties”), ‘Based on the foregoing, | ask that you contact me so that we can ‘Moutually schedule the hearing for an approptiato time and location. We should also discuss tho length of the hearing, the number of witnesses that will be attending, the timing and procedure for motions and legal arguments, arid whother or not you will accept service of subpoenas for the SLA staff members and officials which we plan to issue pursuant to 9 NYCRR 54.3. Please be advised that this communication is made without prejudice to my clients? position in Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC ¥. NY. Liquor Authority, Albany County Index No, 4915-14, and does not eonstitule consent to ST.A’s jurisdiction or an acknowledgment that SLA. hhas any power or authority to assert the charges at issue herein, Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, William $, Nolan ews263Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Ser Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:53 PM Yo: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Much appreciated. Thanks Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New Yark | 12260 | 0 | §18.487.7773 | f | 518.487.7777 [ej ymolan@woh.com | w | www.wob.com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) {maito:Marsaria,Marsico@sla.ny.gov| ‘Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:24 PM lolan, Will Dear Mr. Nolan, Vil send copies of the documents via email today. | will also send another flash drive overnight to your Albany address, Your address has been corrected in our systems, “Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will (mailto; WNolan@woh.com] ‘Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:43 PM. ‘To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) : Subject: Empire ; Ms. Marsico: Could you email me a set of the documents that you mailed out segarding this matter? It appears they went to our Hudson Office, which does not routinely have any staff. Thanks, wilt Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 Jo | 518.487.7773 | F| 918.487.7777 |e} wnolan@woh.com | w | yww.woh.com ews2aaMarsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will se Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:43 PM To: ‘Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: Empire Ms. Marsico: Could you email me a set of the documents that you mailed out regarding this matter? It appears they went to our Hudson Office, which does not routinely have any staff. Thanks, wilt Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 | 0 | $18.487.9773 | f| 518.487.7777 Le | wnolan@wob.com | w | wuwanoh.com ews765Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:37 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empite Discovery Ms, Marsico, The notice of hearing makes reference to an attachment, but there is no attachment. Can you please send that along. Thank you Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 Jo | $18.487.7773 | F| $18.487.7777 Je] waoln@woh.com | w | wmwnoh.com From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mallto:Margarita,Marsico@sla.ny. gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: Nolan, Will Subject: Empire Discovery Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached, Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews255Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Nolan, Will Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:47 AM To: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Oh, no, I'm ceferring to the bold face print that says see attached for conditional no contest pleas, translators, adjournments, Somehow that’s missing Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Partner One Commerce Plaza | Albany | New York | 12260 Jo | 518.497.9773 | f| 518.487.7777 Je | wnolan@woh.com | w | www.woh.com argarita, Marsico@sla.ny.aov] i6 AM From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mail Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 To: Nolan, Will Subject: RE: Empire Discovery Dear Mr.Nolan, ‘The attachment is the cover page of the discovery and the dacuments, Sincerely, Margarita Marsico From: Nolan, Will [mailto:WNolan@woh.com} Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:37 AM Tot Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Subject: RE: Empire Discovery : Ms. Marsico, ‘The notice of hearing makes reference to an attachment, but there is no attachment. Can you please send that along, Thank you Will Nolan | Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP Pactnor ‘One Commerce Plaza | Albany.| New York | 12260 [o| 518.487.7773 | | 518.487.7777 Le] wmolan@won.com | w | www.woh. 1m From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) [mailta:Maroarita Marsico@sla.ny.gov Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: Nolan, Will Subject: Empire Discovery Dear Mr, Nolan, ewsrs7Please see attached. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counser's Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews26Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: "Nolan, will Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPart pdf; EmpireNOHO924,pdf Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counset’s Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue Mew York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews269Mai Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PM To: “Nolan, will Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartLpdf; EmpireNOH0924 pdf Dear Mr, Nolan, Please see attached. Margarita Mar Counse'’s Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 0, Esq. ews270Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:00 PM. To: Nolan, Will” Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartll.pdf Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached, Margarita Marsico, Counsel's Office New York State Liquor Authority, 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 20027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews271Marsico, Margarita (SLA) From: Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:01 PM To: "Nolan, Will" Subject: Empire Discovery Attachments: EmpireDiscPartll_ pdf Dear Mr. Nolan, Part I of discovery, Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counset's Office ‘New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 Ewsx72Marsico, Margarita (SLA) Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 PM "Nolan, will" Empire Part IV Biscovery EmpireDiscPartlv.paf Dear Mr. Nolan, Please see attached. | sent flash drive via fed ex overnite. Sincerely, Margarita Marsico Margarita Marsico, Esq. Counset’s Office New York State Liquor Authority 317 Lenox Avenue New York, NY 10027 Tel 212-961-8318 Fax 212-961-8316 ews273EXHIBIT CWHITEMAN Attorneys at Law OSTERMAN | anwwoh.com & HANNA ur iam las si8.4s7.zm phone waolan@woh.com One Commence Plaza Albany, New York 13260 s518.487:7600 phone 18.487-77 fox November 11, 2014 Via FedBy & Email (thomas. donohue@sla.ny.gov) Mr. Thomas Donohue FOIL Appeals Officer State Liquor Authority 80S, Swan Street, Suite 900 Albany, New York 12210-8002 Re: Appeal. of FOIL Determination dated November 2,.2014 Dear Mr, Donohue: This firm represents Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC (“Empire”), On Empire's behalf, and under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), we hereby appeal the entirety of the State Liquor Authotity’s (“SLA”) November 2, 2014 Response (the “Response”) to Empire’s September 26, 2014 Freedom of Information Law Request (the “Request”). A copy of the Request and Response are attached as Exhibits A and B respectively, for your reference. Overview An analysis of the propriety of SLA’s response begins with the principle that all SLA records are presumptively open for public inspection and copying untess they fall within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officers Law § 87(2). To ensure maximum access to government documents, the “exemptions are to be narrowly construed, with the burden resting on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption” (Matter, of Hanig v, State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 79 NY2d 106, 109 [1992|). “Only where the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of these statutory exemptions may disclosure be withheld” (Matter of Fink y, Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979 }). To invoke one of the exemptions of section 87(2), SLA must articulate a “patticularized and specific justification” for not disclosing requested documents (Id; see also Matter of Beechwood Restorative Care Cir, v. Signor, 5 NY3d 435, 440-441 [2005]), If SLA fails to prove that a statutory exemption applies, “FOIL compels disclosure, not concealment” (Matter of Data Tree, LLC y, Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 463 [2007]).In this case, many of SLA’s denials are inappropriate and unsupported by Public Officers Law § 87(2) and the case law developed thereunder, With respect to several categories of documents requested by Empire, it appears that the agency did not even bother to review the documents it claims to be protecting to determine if, indeed, such documents actually contain exempted information, Nor did the agency describe any particularized or specific justifications for its refusal to disclose responsive documents, or undertake any effort to redact information that might be lawfully exempted so that the remaining portions of responsive documents could be produced. Also, in at least one instance (request number 22), it appears that the agency either completely ignored responsive information believed to be in its possession or, worse yet, intentionally omitted such information from its response. Finally, while we are appealing the entirety of SLA’s Response, we ask that particular attention be paid to the following items on appeal: Response to Request No. 22 Although SLA claims that Request No. 22 was “granted,” it appears SLA has actually omitted documents from its response to this request, which seeks “[fJormal or informal complaints made or submitted to the New York Stale Liquor Authority which mention, reflect or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York.” The only documents provided by SLA in its Response to this Request are pages EWS 120-129 and EWS 131, which are cease and desist letters from other states. It is hard to believe that no other complaints exist, Indeed, missing from SLA’s Response are complaints lodged with SLA through its website (tep:/ivww.trans.abe,state,ny.us/TSP/complaintreg/ComplaintRegistryPage), by telephone, or otherwise, We ask that a thorough search of these registered complaints be conducted to determine whether any of them “mention, reflect ot relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York,” If such registered complaints exist, we request a thorough explanation as to why SLA omitted them from its FOIL response, If such registered complaints do not exist, we suggest that an inguiry be made into whether such complaints may have been destroyed. Response to Request Nos. 1,2, 16 and 17 SLA has denied our request for emails and other correspondence between or among representatives of employees of SLA which mention, refer, or relate to Empire, Bradley Junco, shipments of alcoholic beverages to customers outside the State of New York, or internet sales of alcoholic beverages,’ The purported basis for this denial is, apparently, that every single document in SLA’s possession which mentions, refers or relates to Empire or Mr, Junco is an “inter-agency material” exempt from FOIL, Such a position is preposterous, As SLA is well aware from the very case it cites in support of its denial (Matter of Mothers on the Move, Inc. ». Max Messer, 236 AD2d 408, 410 [2d Dept 1997) the inter-agency + SLA’s Response treats Request No, 16 and Request No. 17 identically as relating to internet sales, when in feet they are two different requests. Request No. 16 relates to shipments of aleoholie beverages outside of New York, ‘and Request No, 17 relates to internet sales of alcoholic beverages. 2exemption does not apply to “factual observations, even in documents issued before final decision” (Id). SLA documents containing any “objective, factual data” regarding Empire or Mr, Junco must, therefore, be produced (Id). Factual data simply means objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making. This includes any factual information in any emails, notes, memoranda or other investigative documents (Humane Soc'y of the United States v, Brennan, 53 AD3d 909 {3d Dept 2008][handwritien notes and memoranda prepared by agency investigator were not exempt from FOIL because they contained factual information]. To the extent any such documents also contain material lawfully exempt from disclosure, SLA. cannot withhold them in their entirety; the proper course is to redaet exempted information and disclose the remaining portions (Id), Response to Request No, SLA has denied our request for audio recordings or conversations between SLA representatives or employees and anyone else that mentions, refers, or relates to Empire or Mr. Junco, ‘The purported basis for the denial is that disclosure of such materials would reveal “investigative techniques and procedures” related fo “the wholesale and retail sale of alcoholic beverages which is a specialized industry.” Preliminarily, it should be noted that on or about Wednesday, May 15, 2013, SLA disclosed materials related to an interview of Mr. Junco in response to a third party’s FOIL request, A copy of an email from SLA’s Senior Attomey to Empire's counsel advising of this disclosure is attached as Exhibit C. Given that SLA has disclosed similar information to third parties about Empire, there is no basis to deny the same type of diselasure to Empire. In any event, the exemption for “investigative techniques and procedures” cited by SLA does not apply to standard or routine investigative techniques or procedures, including witness interviews (Beyah v. Gord, 309 A.D.2d 1049, 1051 [3d Dept 2003]). Plainly, interviewing is hardly a novel investigative technique or procedure; the practice of questioning witnesses and interested parties has been used for centuries, And any claim that SLAs interviews are somehow special or different because they relate to “a specialized industry” is completely frivolous; there is no FOIL exemption for matters that relate to a “specialized industry.” This is simply a stonewalling attempt by SLA’s counsel’s office to hide pertinent information, In sum, it is improper for SLA to withhold any information regarding statements or information provided to the agency by thitd parties (Matter of Carnevale v. City of Albany, 68 AD3d 1290 [3d Dept 2009). Response to Request No. 5 SLA has refused to produce notices of violation citing 9 NYCRR 53.1(n) for the time period from January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014. SLA contends that locating these documents would be too difficult, but such difficulty does not equate to a FOIL exemption. In fact, SLA’s position is directly contrary to the statements it makes on its “FOIL. Request Subject Matter List.” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, and which expressly lists “Notices of Pleading on Disciplinary Matters Against Licensees.”Although SLA has produced a summary report of its improper conduct charges for the period in question, the report is plainly insufficient as it contains no details whatsoever as to the particular violations alleged, and hundreds of the violations simply list “improper conduct” with no further information, Accordingly, SLA’s Response to Request No. 5 is insufficient and the documents demanded must be produced, Response to Request Nos. 6 and 7 SLA has denied our requests for documents setting forth any interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n) of defining “improper conduct” under that regulation. We object to the denial to the extent that itis does not indicate that such documents do not exist, but only that “{a}either the Authority nor the Authority's Office of Counsel have created any documents setting forth an interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1. SLA’s FOIL obligations are not limited to documents created by the current SLA administration or its officers; its FOIL obligations cover all documents in SLA’s possession, whether created by SLA or not. Response to Request Nos. 14 and 31 SLA has denied our request for documents relating (o any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Empire Wine or Bradley Junco, claiming that discovery for SLA case 88869 has already been provided, SLA’s denial, however, is fundamentally improper, As demonstrated by the cover letter under which such “discovery” was provided, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E, the only discovery provided to Empire in the enforcement proceeding are materials that SLA intends 10 introduce into evidence. In other words, SLA has no trouble providing information that it can use to hurt Empire, but anything more than that is somehow off limits. Again, this stonewalling effort by SLA is improper and the materials requested in Request Nos. 14 and 31 must be provided. Response to Request Nos. 18 and 19 SLA’s denials of Request Nos, 18 and 19 are patently improper. The requests seek correspondence between SLA and government agencies outside the State of New York, yet SLA claims that such information constitutes attomey work product under CPLR 3101, SLA’s reliance on CPLR 3101 is misplaced, While it is true that “agency may deny access to records or portions thereof” that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute” the Court of Appeals has held that CPLR atticle 31 is not such a statute (Matter of M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 62 NY24 75, 81 [1984] [CPLR article 31 is not a statute ‘specifically exempt[ing)’ public records from disclosure under FOIL”). CPLR Article 31 is concerned only with the exchange of information, documents and materials between patties within the same civil action, and the rules governing such exchanges are not interchangeable with the rules governing FOIL, disclosure merely because the same materials may be at issue (Matter of DeCorse v, City of Buffalo, 239 AD.2d 949, 950 [4th Dep't 1997]). In any event, SLA is misapplying the work product doctrine, which is a narrow concept encompassing only “materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney's legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy” (Brooklyn Union Gas Co, v, American Home Assurance Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 [1%Dept, 2005]; Hoffinan v. Ro-San Manor, 13 AD24 207, 211 [1 Dept 1980}; Graf'v. Aldrich, 94 AD2d 823, 824 [3d Dept, 1983]), Contrary to SLA’s position, “{not every manifestation of a lawyer's labors enjoys the absolute immunity of work product” (Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207, 211 [ist Dept 1980] ). If SLA communicated with an ageney in another state about Empire Wine, those communications are unprotected by the attorney work product doctrine, even if authored or received by an attorney; any protection would also have been waived by virtue of the disclosure of the information contained in the communication to a third party (Morgan v. New York State Dept, of Environmental Conservation, 9 AD3d 586, 587-88 [3d Dept 2004] [“{DJocumentary communications are not confidential if copies thereof are sent to thitd parties... the privilege protects communications with counsel, it does not apply to “information obtained from or communicated to third parties or to underlying factual information] Finally, SLA’s conclusory assertion that all documents responsive to this request are protected as work product is insufficient to avoid disclosure, SLA’s “own labels ate obviously not determinative of work product, and fits] generalized descriptions—lacking identification of persons, time periods and cireumstances—do not convey the information and analysis necessary to decide whether a particular document should be immunized from disclosure under CPLR 3101(c)" (Spectrum Systems Intern. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 381 [1991]) Response to Request Nos. 20 and 22 ‘SLA has refused to produce any formal or informal complaints made to the ageney with respeet to any action or policy of Empire, on the grounds that Public Officers Law 87.2(e)() “exempts the disclosure of documents that would interfere with law enforcement investigations.” SLA’s refusal, however, is not supported by the investigation exemption. It is established law that, under FOIL, statements by witnesses, which would include complaints, must be disclosed (Gould v. NYC Police Dept, 89 NY2d 267 [1996]). Moreover, any claim made by SLA that disclosure would impair a law enforcement investigation must be based on more than mere speculation (Ragusa v. NYS Dept of Law, 152 Misc2d 602 [Sup Ct 1991)), SLA claims that the complaints it has apparently received regarding Empire Wine Gelthough it has neither confirmed or denied that it has any such complaints) are confidential in nature. “But the ageney must do more than just claim confidentiality for any confidentiality exemption to apply - it must show the complaining witness is a confidential informant who was promised anonymity, or that the witness’s safety would be endangered by disclosure (Gomez v, Fischer, 74 AD3d 1399, 1400 [3d Dept 2010] Matter of John H. v. Goord, 27 A.D.3d 798, 800, 809 NYS.2d 682 [2006]; Matter of Carnevale v. City of Albany, 68 A.D.3d 1290, 1292, 891 NYS.2d 495 [2009]), Even where confidentiality is at issue, the identifying information of the particular complainants can easily be redacted from SLAs production as contemplated by Public Officers Law § 89(2)(c)(i). Response to Request Nos. 24, 25, and 26 SLA has denied access to emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen which mention, refer, or relate to Empire Wines or Bradley Junco. While SLA acknowledges having emails responsive to this request for the period from September 23, 2014 to the present, it claims that such emails are protected as intra-agency material under Public Officers Law 87.2(g). But to the 5extent such emails were sent or received by or from individuals outside the ageney, or to the extent they contain any factual information, they are not protected by the intra-agency exemption and must be produced, even if in redacted form to protect any lawfully exempt information, Response to Request No. 27 SLA claims that various emails received or sent by Margarita Marsico are attorney work product. Because SLA has misapplied and misunderstood the work product exception with respect to other requests (see Response to Request Nos. 18 and 19), these emails should be reviewed again to determine whether they are, in fact, attomey work product, and if so, whether they are exempt from FOIL. Moreover, Empire has reason to believe that SLA intentionally omitted non-privileged documents from its response, Specifically, Empire’s counsel sent specific emails to Ms. Marsico that were not included in SLA’s Response. ‘There is no reason that such emails should have been withheld from SLA’s production, as the emails were clearly not privileged or protected attorney work product, Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Empire appeals from SLA’s November 2, 2014 FOIL, Response in its entirety, Empire requests that the entirety of SLA’s response be reviewed for errors and omissions and that “within ten business days of the receipt of [this] appeal you fully explain in writing” all “teasons for further denial, or provide access to the record[s} sought” in accordance with Public Officers Law § 89 (4)(a). If within ten days of your reccipt of this appeal Empire does not receive a thorough and complete response to its FOIL request, or a proper and lawful justification for SLA’s failure to produce any documents subject to its FOIL request, an Article 78 proceeding will be commenced against SLA as provided for under Public Officers Law § 89(4)(b). If such a proceeding is commenced, Empire will seek its counsel fees and litigation costs in accordance with Public Officers Law § 89(4)(c). ‘Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, William S. Nolan onto sitearaontartay gerne eed mp DeEXHIBITS ARE INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDEDEXHIBIT DDENNIS ROSEN ANDREW M. CUOMO rare oF new york ‘cana ovenvcr EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL JEANIQUE GREENE STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY seer ve hr ut auute Kevin Kin vw slay. gov December 5, 2014 William §. Nolan, Esq. Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12260 Re: Appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Dear Mr. Nolan: By letter dated September 26, 2014, you submitted a request under the Freedom OF Information Law (“FOIL”) for records maintained by the Authority, Your request identified thirty-one categories of records being sought. ‘That request was submitted to the Authority's FOIL Office, In a letter dated November 2, 2014, the Authority’s General Counsel responded to your request by: granting access to certain records; denying access to other records; and indicating that the Authority did not have some of the records you were seeking. On November 12, 2014, in my capacity as the Authority's FOLL appeals officer, I received your November 11, 2014 letter secking a review of the Authority’s response fo your FOIL request. With your consent, the time for me to issue a decision on your appeal was extended until December 6, 2014, This letter constitutes my decision on the appeal and, pursuant to the applicable provisions of FOIL and the Rules of the Authority, itis a final determination of this matter, 1 will address each of the thirty-one categories of information individually. As I noted in my November 12, 2014 email to you and relevant Authority staff, I requested copies of the records that the agency claims are not exempt from disclosure. | am relying on the representation by agency staff that the records provided to me includes any and all records, up to the date of General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, falling within the description of the particular category. | am also relying on the representations in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter that: with respect to records the Authority has provided, the response includes any and all records, up to the date of General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, falling within the description of the particular category; and with respect to claims that the Authority has no such records falling within the description of the particular category, that no such records exist up toDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL. response Page 2 of 1S the date of General Counsel’s November 2, 2014. In other words, | did not conduct my own review or search of agency records to determine if additional records exist that arguably fall within the categories of records that you are seeking. Prior to addressing each category, | also want to set forth my role, as { understand it, in the FOIL appeal process. With respect to categories of records where you have been denied access, my first task is to determine whether the Authority has set forth a legally sufficient reason for denying your request. The case law makes quite clear that an agency must point to a specific exemption in the statute that allows for non-disclosure of the information that is being requested. The burden is on the agency to articulate a “particularized and specific just for denying access (Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979]). Merely repeating the language in the statutory exemption is not sufficient (City of Newark v. Law Dept. of City of New York, 305 AD2d 28 [1* Dept., 2003]). However, even if I find that the Authority's stated reason for denial is not sufficient, my reading of the FOIL statutes suggests that my review of this matter is not necessarily complete. Public Officers Law (“POL”) §89(4) which provides for this appeal process, states that the appeals officer must “fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought.” Based on this language, it appears to me that | must make an independent determination whether there is a “particularized and specific stification” for continuing to deny you access to the records that you are seeking, 1, Emails and other correspondence between or among representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied ‘on the basis that any such records constituted inter-agency or intra-agency materials protected from disclosure under POL §87(2)(g). That provision allows an agency to withhold inter-agency or intra-agency materials unless those rec ical or factual tabulations or ; Gi) instructions to staff that affect the pub i) final agency policy or As noted in the Authority's response, this exemption from disclosure applies, among other things, to “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not consisting final policy decisions” (Mothers on the Move v, Messer, 236 AD2d 408, 410 [2 Dept., 197). “The point of the intra-agency exception is to permit people within an agency to exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly, without the chilling prospect of publie disclosure” (New York Times Co. v, City of New York Fire Dept. 4 NY3¢d 477, 488 [2005)). I have reviewed the emails that the Authority claims fall within the scope of POL §87(2)(e). Based on the relevant case law, it is my opinion that the emails are exempt from disclosure as intra-agency materials. Accordingly, access to the requested records is denied,Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 3 of 15 2, Emails and other correspondence between or among representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. As represented in the General Counsel"s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied on the same grounds as item #1. For the reasons set forth in my discussion of item #1, I uphold the denial of access to the emails, 3. Audio recordings of interviews or conversations between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all recordings of representatives or employees of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. By letter dated November 19, 2014, you claim that you are now aware of a recording of another employee, Dan Byron that was not provided. I have confirmed that such a recording is in the Authority's possession and was inadvertently omitted from the ‘Authority's initial response to your request. That recording will now be made available to you by our FOIL Office. 4, Audio recordings of interviews or conversations between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and anyone else that mention, refer or relate in any way to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because the materials would reveal investigative techniques and procedures that are exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL §87(2)(a)(iv). I assume that the statutory citation contains a typographical exror. POL §87(2)(e)(iv) allows an agency to deny access to records “compiled for law enforcement purposes” that would, if released, “reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, except routine techniques and procedures.” Explaining its position, the Authority states that the requested materials “concern the wholesale and retail sale of alcoholic beverages which is a specialized industry. Accordingly, said records contain specialized methods of conducting investigations which are particular to the Authority and this industry.” I note that it appears from the Authority's response that any such recordings in the Authority's possession were made as part of an investigation conducted by the Authority. Based on representations made to me by the General Counsel, it is my understanding that there are no such recordings in its possession that are not related to such an investigation, ‘The Authority cites Fink v, Lefkowitz (47 NY2d 567 [1979}) in support of its position. In that case an agency sought to deny access to an office manual that contained confidential methods used for investigating nursing home fraud. Specifically, the ageney sought to withholdDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 4 of 15 portions of the manual that contained step-by-step instructions on conducting the investigation as well as sample investigation reports from successful prosecutions. In upholding the refusal to disclose the material, the Court of Appeals stated that *[e]ffective law enforcement demands that violators of the law aot be apprised of the non-routine procedures by which an agency obtains it information (47 NY2d at 570). | find that the reason set forth by the Authority for denying access to the recordings is not sufficient under FOIL. ‘The Authority argues that, because the sale of alcoholic beverages is a specialized industry, the methods used to investigate the industry are also specialized. To accept the Authority’s argument, one would have to conelude that the ageney does not use any routine investigative methods. The Court of Appeals noted in Fink that an indication of whether a record would disclose non-routine investigative techniques is “whether disclosure of those procedures would give rise to the substantial likelihood that violators could evade detection by deliberately tailoring their conduct in anticipation of avenues of inquiry to be pursued by agency personne!” (47 NY2d at 572). Interviews of witnesses are part of the routine investigative process (Beyah v. Goord, 309 AD2d 1049, 1052 [3" Dept., 2003]}). However, based upon representations made by the General Counsel and a summary of the interviews in question, these interviews relate to an inquiry into certain industry “trade practices” that did require specialized techniques to conduct the investigation. The release of the interviews would, accordingly, disclose those specialized techniques and, as noted in Fink, significantly inerease the ability of violators to tailor their conduct to avoid detection. Accordingly, access to the requested records is denied. 5. Notices of Violation, issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August I, 2014, alleging violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because production of the documents would require a manual search and printing of over two thousand records, The Authority claims that such an effort “is clearly not contemplated by the Public Officer's [sic] Law.” In lieu of producing the requested documents, the Authority provided you with a list of disciplinary proceedings that included alleged violations of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). In your appeal you claim that the Authority’s response is not sufficient and is also contrary to statements made by the Authority on its web site. | agree with your claim that the Authority has failed to sufficiently respond to your request. There is no exemption in FOIL that allows an agency to deny access based on the volume of records that would have to be produced. There is a distinct difference between a request that is too vague to identify the records being requested and a request that is so broad that it requires the production of numerous records (M. Farbman & Sons v, New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 62 NY2d 75, 81 [1984]). In my opinion the former is a suflicient ground to deny access while the latter is not,Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 5 of 5 ‘There are two other factors that call into question the sufficiency of the Authority's response. First is the agency's current policy with respect to the disclosure of pleadings. You incorrectly assert that the Authority publishes a list of documents available under FOIL that includes pleading notices. In fact, the list, required by POL §87(3)(c), is a recital by subject matter of records in the agency’s possession without regard to whether the record is available under FOIL. However, it is my understanding that the Authority routinely discloses such documents. The only distinction in this case appears to be the number of documents that would have to be produced. There is nothing on the Authority's website that suggests a request for documents otherwise available can be denied because of the number of records that would be provided The second factor is the Authority’s claim that a manual search would be required to comply with this request. This claim is contradicted by the records that have been provided to you. The search to identify the relevant documents has been done, The only remaining step is to retrieve the records. As noted above, the fact that your request would involve the retrieval of numerous documents is not a sufficient reason to deny access to the records, It is only a reason to advise you, pursuant to POL, §89(3)(a), of the reasonable amount of time that would be required to provide the documents. Accordingly, I hereby direct the Authority’s FOIL Office to provide you with the pleadings for each of the disciplinary proceedings referenced on the list that was supplied to you. However, as argued by the General Counsel, the production of these records will be time consuming. Therefore, the FOIL Office shall have sixty days to provide you with the records. 6 Documents setting forth any interpretation or analysis of 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because “neither the “Members of the Authority nor the Authority’s Office of Counsel have created” any such documents. I would first note that I do not understand why the response was limited to documents created by the Members of the Authority or the Office of Counsel. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that disclosure is limited to documents prepared by an agency, the Authority’s response, without explanation, restricts the inquiry to documents prepared by certain agency staff. I would also nofe that, if the Authority is claiming that there are no records that fall into this category, this request should not have been denied, Instead of denying your request, the Authority should have stated that it does not have any such documents and that no such documents could be located after a diligent search of the agency's records (Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Signor, 5 NY3d 435 [2005). In any event, the Authority's response, as you note in your appeal, does not fulfill the agency's obligations under FOIL. For purposes of FOIL, Public Officers Law §86(4) defines a “record” as “any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced” with an agency. It is well settled thatDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 6 of 15 2 “record” would include a document that originated outside of the agency (Washingion Post Co. v, New York State Insurance Dept., 61 NY2d 557 (1984]). Upon further consultation with the General Counsel, it appears that there are two documents that arguably fall within the description of the records you are requesting. Coincidentally, | am the author of both documents. he first document is a presentation I gave before the Young Lawyer's Section of the New York State Bar Association, Inasmuch as this document was provided to the attendees of that event, there is no reason why it should not be provided to you. Please note that neither the Members of the Authority nor the Office of Counsel (which 1 am not part of) assisted in the preparation of, or approved, the contents of this document. Accordingly, you will be provided with a copy of this document by our FOIL Office, The second document is a handout provided to agency prosecutors as part of a training 1 conducted. As with the first document, neither the Members of the Authority nor the Office of Counsel assisted in the preparation of, or approved, the contents of this document, As discussed earlier in this letter, POL §87(2)(g) allows an agency to withhold inter-ageney or intra-agency materials unless those records consist of (i) statistical or factual tabulations or data; Gi) instructions to staff that affect the public; and (fii) final agency policy or determinations. The point of the intra-agency exception is to permit people within an agency to exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly, without the chilling prospect of publie disclosure” (New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Dept, 4 NY3rd 477, 488 [2005]), ‘This document clearly falls within this exception. Accordingly, access to that record is denied, 7, Documents defining “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). With respect to the Authority’s response to your request, please see my statements above regarding item #6, As with that request, there are two documents that arguably fall within the description of the records you are requesting, You will be provided with the presentation | gave before the Young Lawyer's Section of the New York State Bar Association, Access to the training material is denied for the reasons set forth in my statements regarding item #6. 8. Documents listing types of “improper conduct” under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted to the extent that the Authority provided you with a list of improper conduct charges available to prosecutors on the Authority’s Compliance computer program. As represented by the General Counsel, there is no other document listing the types of improper conduct falling within 9 NYCRR 53.1(n).Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 7 of 15 9. Notices of Violation, issued to any licensed entity between January 1, 2009 and August 1, 2014, alleging any unlawful sale or shipment of any aleoholic beverage to a customer or customers in any State outside of New York. As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents, 10. Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority's position or policy on the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensces to customers within the State of New York, As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents. 11, Documents setting forth the New York State Liquor Authority’s position or policy ‘on the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages by licensees to customers outside the State of New York. As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents, 12, Cease and desist letters issued to out-of-state businesses for unlawfully shipping alcohol of any type into the State of New York. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents, 13. Cease and desist letters issued to businesses in the State of New York for shipping alcohol of any type to customers outside the State of New York. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents, 14. Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because the materials requested have already been provided to you as “discovery” with respect toDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 8 of 15 a pending disciplinary proceeding, Arguably the Authority should not have “denied” the request since it appears that you ate not denied access to the records but have already been provided with the materials. | am relying on the Authority's representation that the documents that have been provided are the only documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against your client. ‘After consulting with the General Counsel, it is my understanding that your elient and/or its employees have been interviewed with respect to investigations against other licensees, tis also my understanding that you are aware of such matters. Inasmuch as any such records would fall outside the scope of this request, | do not address whether the Authority may deny you access to those records. 15, Documents reflecting, relating to, or mentioning any investigation or enforcement proceeding against Bradley Junco. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letier, this request was denied because it seeks records regarding an investigation of Mr. Junco. As noted in General Counsel's letter, the Authority conducts investigations of licensees and Mr. Juno, while a principal of a licensed entity, is not a licensee. I note that, in your November 11, 2014 letter, you do not address this item. Accordingly, you are not being denied access to any such records since no such records exist, 16. Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements or other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to or mentioning shipments of alcoholic beverages of any type to customers outside the State of New York. As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied ‘on the basis that any such records constituted inter-agency or intra-agency materials protected from disclosure under POL §87(2)(g). As discussed elsewhere in my letter, this exemption applies, among other things, to “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not consisting final policy decisions” (Mothers on the Move v. Messer, 236 AD2d at 410). ‘The point of the exception is to permit people within an agency to exchange opinions, advice and criticism freely and frankly, without the chilling prospect of public disclosure” (New York Times Co. v, City of New York Fire Dept,, 4 NY3rd at 488 ). Upon reviewing the records provided to me, I find that a portion of the materials are exempt from disclosure under POL, §87(2)(g). With respeot to the remaining materials, I find that they are exempt under POL §87(2)(a), which allows an agency to deny aecess to records that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.” CPLR §3101(c) specifically exempts “attorney work product.” You note several times in your November 11, 2014 letter that the Authority has “misapplied andDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 9 of 15 misunderstood the work product exception” with respect to FOIL. You argue that the Authority's reliance on CPLR §3101 is misplaced. To support your argument, you cite M. Farbman & Sons v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (62 NY2< 75 [1984]). Respectfully, your reliance on that case is misplaced. In that decision, the Court of Appeals stated that CPLR Article 31 did not create a blanket exception under POL §87(2)(a) (62 NY2d at 81), However, the Court expressly stated that it was not deciding whether the attomey work product, along with certain other exemptions from disclosure under Article 31, would be exempted under POL, §87(2)(a) (62 NY2d at 82). ‘The attorney work product exception applies “to documents prepared by counsel acting, as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy (Brooklyn Union Gas Company v. American Home Assurance Company, 23 AD3d 190 [1* Dept 2005). Ihave reviewed the materials and conse that they ae “atlomey work product” fined in the Brooklyn Union Gas Company case. In addition, some of these materials are pri ogc attorney-client communications under CPLR §3101(c) and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL §87(2)(a). Accordingly, your request to access these records are denied 17. Emails, memoranda, policy statements, position statements. or _ other communications between or among representatives of the New York State Liquor Authority reflecting, relating to or mentioning internet sales of alcoholic beverages of any type. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted in part and denied in part. With respect to the records being withheld, the Authority claims that any such records constituted inter-agency or intraagency materials protected from disclosure under POL §87(2)(g). Upon reviewing the records provided to me, I find (as more fully explained in my discussion regarding item #16) that a portion of the materials are exempt from disclosure under POL §87(2)(e). With respect to the remaining materials, I find (as more fully explained in my discussion regarding item #16) that they are exempt under POL §87(2)(a) as records that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.” Accordingly, your request to access these records arc denied. 18. Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employees of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, the request was denied on the grounds that the records are exempt as “altomey work product” pursuant (o CPLR 3101.Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 10 of 15 Upon reviewing the records, for the reasons set forth in my discussion regarding item #16, 1 concur with the General Counsel that the materials are “attomey work product” as defined in the Brooklyn Union Gas Company case, Accordingly, your request to access these records are denied. 19, Emails and other correspondence between any representatives or employces of the New York State Liquor Authority and any representatives or employees of any other State government agency outside the State of New York which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Juneo, As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, the request was denied on the grounds that the records are exempt as “attorney work product” pursuant to CPLR 3101. Upon reviewing the records, for the reasons set forth in my discussion regarding item #16, 1 coneur with the General Counsel that the materials are “attomey work product” as defined in the Brooklyn Union Gas Company vase. Accordingly, your request to access these records are denied. 20. Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority with respect to any action or policy of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied upon two grounds. First, the Authority claims that the records are exempt from disclosure under POL §87(2)(e)(i) because release of the material would interfere with law enforcement investigations. Second, the Authority claims that the records are exempt from disclosure under POL §87(2)()(iii) because the material identifies confidential sources and information that relates to investigations, You argue that “it is established law that, under FOIL, statements by witnesses, wi ‘would include complaints, must be disclosed. In support of your position you cite Gould v. New York City Police Dept. (89 NY2d 267 [1996)]). However, as I read Gould | find nothing that stands for the proposition that all complaints should necessarily be classified as witness statements. In any event, you appear to concede the point that a statement/complaint can be withheld if: the witness/complainant was a confidential informant; the witness/complainant requested or was promised anonymity; or the life or safety of the witness/complainant would be endangered by disclosure (Gomez v. Fischer, 74 AD3d 1399, 1401 [3" Dept., 2010)).. Addressing the second argument raised by the Authority, I note that the agency cites POL, §87(2)(i)(ii) for the proposition that it can withhold confidential sources and information related to investigations. Inasmuch as there is no §87(2)((iii), I assume that the Authority is relying on §87(2)(e)(ii), which permits the agency to withhold records compiled for law enforcementDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 11 of 15 purposes that would “identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation,” 1 agree with you that the Authority failed to make a sul showing that the source, or sources, of the complaints is (are) confidential informant(s). After reviewing the records, [ also find that the complaints do not appear to disclose any confidential information, However, in my opinion, the complaints I have reviewed may be withheld by the Authority because disclosure would interfere with investigations into the conduct of your client DeLuca v. New York Police Dept, 261 AD2d 140 {I* Dept, 1999)). The information appears to relate to ongoing or recent conduct and would be televant to a current or future investigation, and the disclosure of the records could frustrate such investigations (Council of Regulated Adult Liquor Licensees v. City of New York Police Dept., 300 AD2d 17 [1 Dept., 2002}). 21. Documents mentioning, reflecting or relating in any way to the New York State Liquor Authority’s response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any ction of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. The Authority has denied access to all such documents. However, it appears that your request in category #23 seeks the exact same documents. While denying access under this item because the request was deemed “too vague,” the Authority grants access to the documents in its response to category #23. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the Authority’s denial with respect 10 this category, it appears that this request is moot. 22, Formal and informal complaints made or submitted to the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, reflect or relate to sales or shipments of alcoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York, As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents. ‘The documents provided to you are “cease and desist letters” issued by various agencies from other states directed to New York State licensees, including your client, You state that “it is hard to believe that no other complaints exist.” You allege that the Authority has withheld complaints submitted to the Authority either through its website, by telephone or otherwise. I have been advised by the Authority's General Counsel that a search of the agency's records has been conducted and there are no other records in the Authority’s possession that fall within the description of this request. 23. Documents mentioning, reflecting or relating in any way to the New York State wor Authority’s response to any complaint made or submitted with respect to any action of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco.Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 12 of 15 As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was granted and you have been provided with all such documents. As explained to me by the General Counsel, the Authority's answer was based on an assumption that, by “response”, you were secking records relating to actions taken by the Authority with respect to any such complaints. | also interpreted your request to relate to actions taken by the agency in response to such complaints. Upon further consideration, General Counsel has suggested that you may be seeking records relating to the agency’s reply to, or acknowledgement of, the complaint. If that is the case, please be advised that it is my understanding that the Authority does not, a8 a matter of practice, issue replies or acknowledgements of complaints 24. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, the request was denied ‘on two separate grounds dependent upon the date of the email, The Authority claims that there are no such emails dated prior to September 23, 2014 in its possession, As I have noted elsewhere, the Authority response by the Authority in such a case would be to indicate that a search had been conducted and no such records where found, rather than to “deny” your request. In any event, a subsequent review of Chairman Rosen's emails was conducted after the November 2" letter and I have been provided with emails dated prior to September 23, 2014. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, POL §87(2)(g) allows an agency to withhold certain inter- agency or intra-agency materials, Upon reviewing the records and applying the guidance provided in the two cases cited earlier, Mothers on the Move v, Messer and New York Times Co. ». City of New York Fire Dept., | have concluded that they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to POL §87(2)(g). With respect to emails on or after September 23, 2014, the Authority claims that such emails are also exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency materials under POL §87(2)(g). There appears to be only one such email. The email provides an update from the Office of Counsel to Chairman Rosen on litigation brought by your client. Whether or not the email can properly be classified as exempt inter-agency or intra-ageney material, it is clearly privileged attorney-client communications and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to CPLR §3101(c) and POL §87(2)(a). Accordingly, your request to access these records is denied. 25. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State which mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco. wor Authority As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, the request was denied ‘on two grounds, First, the Authority claims that there are no such emails dated prior to September 23, 2014 in its possession, As noted in my statements with respect to item #24, I haveDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL, response Page 13 of 15 been advised that there are emails dated prior to that date, However, upon reviewing same, 1 have concluded, for the same reasons stated with respect to the emails in item #24, that they are exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency materials. Second, with respect to emails on or after September 23, 2014, the Authority claims that such emails are exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-agency materials under POL §87(2)(g). However, in reviewing the records provided to me, 1 find no emails to, or from, Chairman Rosen that specifically refer to Mr. Junco (rather than Empire Wine & Spirits emails discussed in item #24). | have been advised by the General Counsel that a search was conducted and no such emails exist, 26. Emails received or sent by Dennis Rosen of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to sales or shipments of aleoholic beverages made to customers outside the State of New York. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, the request was denied because the Authority claims that such emails are exempt from disclosure as inter-agency or intra-ageney materials under POL §87(2)(g). Upon reviewing the records provided to me, it appears that there are no such emails from third parties. In reviewing the emails, all such documents are as inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are not records consisting of (j) statistical or factual tabulations or data; (ii) instruetions to staff that affect the public; and (ii) final agency policy or determinations. Accordingly, your request for these records is denied. 27, Emails received or sent by Margarita Marisco of the New York State Liquor Authority which mention, refer or relate to Empire Wine & Spirits LLC. As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, the request was granted in part and denied in part. The Authority denied access to certain emails on the grounds that the communications are exempt as “attomey work product” pursuant to CPLR 3101. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, you argue, and I disagree, that the Authority has “misapplied and misunderstood the work produet exception” with respect to FOIL. I have reviewed the records that the Authority claims are exempt and concur with the General Counsel that the materials are “attorney work product” as defined in the Brooklyn Union Gas Company case. Acoordingly, your request to access these records are denied, received or sent by Margarita Marisco of the New York State Liquor ich mention, refer or relate to Bradley Junco, As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, the request was granted in part and denied in part. The Authority denied access to certain emails on the groundsDecision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 14 of 15 that the communications are exempt as “attorney work product” pursuant to CPLR 3101. As discussed elsewhere in this letter, you argue, and I disagree, that the Authority has “misapplied and misunderstood the work product exception” with respect to FOIL. I have reviewed the records that the Authority claims are exempt and concur with the General Counsel that the materials are “attorney work product” as defined in the Brooklyn Union Gas Company case. Accordingly, your request to access these records are denied, 29, Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which contains the term “Commerce Clause.” As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because it was “vague and overly burdensome.” It does not appear that you addressed this item in your November 11, 2014 letter. With respect to the argument that your request is too vague, there are a number of opinions from the Committee on Open Government related to the ability of an agency to deny a FOIL request based on the adequacy of the description of the records being, sought. The opinions stand for the proposition that the agency must demonstrate that the description is insufficient for the purposes of locating and identifying the records being sought, In my opinion, the request for documents containing the phrase “Commerce Clause” reasonably describes the records that you are seeking, Having reached that conclusion, the next issue is whether the Authority has the means to search its records to find material that ineludes that term. I have been advised by the General Counsel that, with some reasonable programming changes, the agency’s emails can be reached for any communications containing the phrase. I must, therefore, reserve decision on this portion of your request until such time as the search is completed and the Authority asserts any claimed ‘exemption to disclosure. However, I have been advised that the Authority does not have the tools available to search other electronic data files to find other documents, FOIL does not require the agency to create a new program to accomplish this task (Gabriels v, Curiale, 216 AD2d 850 [3 Dept., 1995). 30. _ Emails, documents, memoranda or correspondence of any type which relate to the New York State Liquor Authority's powers under 9 NYCRR 53.1(n). As represented in the General Counsel’s November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because: 1) the Authority does not possess such documents; and 2) any such documents in the Authority's possession are exempt from disclosure because they constitute attorney work product. These two explanations are contradictory. Hither there are no records, or there are records which the Authority claims are attorney work product. Upon consulting the General Counsel, 1 am advised that the only records in the Authority's possession falling within the description of your request are the two documents I reference in items #6 and #7, Accordingly,Decision on appeal of November 2, 2014 FOIL response Page 15 of 15 you will be provided with the presentation before the bar association but you will not be provided with the training material, 31. Documents generated or prepared in connection with any investigation of Empire Wine & Spirits, LLC or Bradley Junco. As represented in the General Counsel's November 2, 2014 letter, this request was denied because the materials requested have already been provided to you as “discovery” with respect to a pending disciplinary proceeding. Therefore I am relying on the Authority’s representation that the documents that have been provided are the only documents generated or prepared in connection with any investigation of your client. Special Counsel Tel: 518-473-2261 ‘Thomas.Donohve@sla.ny.gov ‘TID/lomEXHIBIT Esanzraot4 ‘Welcome tothe Committe on Open Goverment State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government fone Caminerce Plaza 99 Wathington Ave. Alvany, New York 12231 (Sie) 476-2518, Fax (518) 474-1027, su May 28, 1998 Mr. Jack White RD2, Box 400 Poughquag, NY 12570 ‘The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to Issue advisory opinions. ‘The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence. Dear Mr. White: Ihave received your letters of May 26 and April 28 and apologize for sending you 2 response erroneously that should have been sent to a different person, In your original letter, you referred to delays that you are experiencing in your attempts to obtain records from the Town of Beekman. You have asked whether "not having time" represents a "legitimate excuse” for delaying disclosure. In this regard, the Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, °89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that: “Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date when such request will be granted or denied...” While an agency must grant access to records, deny access or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days, when such acknowledgement is given, there is no precise time period within which an agency must grant or deny access to records. The time needed to do so may be dependent upon the volume of a request, the possibility that other requests have been made, the necessity ta conduct legal research, the search and retrieval techniques used to locete the records and the like. In short, when an agency acknowledges the receipt of a request because more than five business days may be needed to grant or deny a request, so long ast provides an approximate date indicating when the request will be granted or denied, and that date Is reasonable in view of the attendant circumstances, I belleve that the agency would be acting in compliance with law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in my view, every law must be Implemented in a ‘manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and I point out that in its statement of legislative intent, °84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that “it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, if records are clearly avallable to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a lengthy delay in Iitpdoes dos. ny govicoogMextt T0833 hen 42san7aot4 ‘Welcome tothe Committe on Open Government disclosure, As the Court of Appeals has asserted: .the successful implementation of the polices motivating the ‘enactment of the Freedom of Information Law centers on goals as broad as the achievement of a more informed electorate and a more responsible and responsive offcialdom. By their very nature such objectives cannot hope to be attained unless the measures taken to bring therm about permeate the body politic to a point where they become the rule rather than the exception. The phrase ‘public accountability wherever and whenever feasible’ therefare merely punctuates with explicitness what In any event Is implicit” [Westchester News v. Kimbal, 50 NY2d $75, 579 (1980)]. Further, in my opinion, if, as a matter of practice or policy, an agency acknowledges the receipt of requests and indicates in every Instance that it will determine to grant or deny access to records “within thirty days" or some other particular period, following the date of acknowledgement, such a practice or policy would be contrary to the thrust of the Freedom of Information Law. If a request Is voluminous and a significant amount of time Is needed to locate records and review them to determine rights of access, thirty days, in view of those and perhaps the other kinds of factors mentioned earlier, might be reasonable. On the other hand, if a record or report is cleariy public and can be found easily, there would appear to be no rational basis for delaying disclosure for as much as thity days. In a case in which it was found that an agency's "actions demonstrate an Utter disregard for compliance set by FOIL", it was held that "[t]he records finaly produced were not so voluminous as to justify any extension of time, much less an extension beyond that allowed by statute, of no responise to appeals at all (Inner City Press/Community on the Move, Inc. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Supreme Court, New York County, November 9, 1993), Additionally, I note that it has been held that an agency's contention that a "shortage of manpower" was not a defense to a denial of access, for a refusal to disclose on that basis would "thwart the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Law” (see United Federation of Teachers v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp, 428 NYS 2d 823 (1980)]. Lastly, I note that I will be speaking at the Beekman Town Hall on June 8 at 7:30 p.m. T will attempt to clerify open government laws and respond to any questions on the subject during the event. hope to see you there and that I have been of assistance, ‘Once again, please accept my apologies for the error. Sincerely, Robert J. Freeman Executive Director RaFSim ce: Town Board FOIL-AO-t10833 10833 DOS Home | AtoZ index | Applications | Accessibilty | Privacy Paley | Disclaimer | Contact Us | ito fdoesdos.ny govcoogiex10835 tmEXHIBIT For) Welcome tothe Committee on Open Goverrment State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government (one Commerce Maza 59 Washington Ave. Aba, New York 1225 (Sis) 474-2518, Fx (518) 474-1927 sod sy oo cae FOTL-A0-16429 January 24, 2007 ‘The staff of the oman ernment i 1 Wvisory opinions, The en: i ‘opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in your correspondence, Dear As you are aware, I have received your letter and materials relating to it. By way of background, you wrote that a group of parents In the Horseheads School District expressed concems relating to the behavior of a certaln coach, who Is also a teacher In the District. The matter was investigated by the District's attorney who, at the conclusion of the investigation, informed parents that the subject of the inquiry "understands the significance of these issues, and has established strategies to address them prior to the next season.” The attorney, according to your letter, also assured parents that the individual's ‘performance improvement plan vail be closely monttored by the administrators,” You requested the "performance Improvernent plan”, but the District denied the request and indicated that: ls personnel document is not a document available under the Freedom of Information Law In that It would constitute an unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy of Coach Monks. Had the complaints regarding Coach Monks been substantiated or found to be meritorious so as to constitute formal discipline, we may have reached a different concluston In this matter." If | accurately understand the facts, the performance Improvement plan shauld be disclosed. In this regard, I offer the following comments. First, 2s a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through ()) of the Law. Second, there is nothing in the Freedom of Information Law that deals specifically with personnel records or personnel files. The nature and content of so-called personnel files may differ from one agency to another and from one employee to another. Neither the characterization of documents as personnel records nor their placement in personnel files would necessarily render those documents confidential or deniable under the Freedom of Information Law (see Steinmetz v. Board of Education, East Moriches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLI, Oct. 30, 1980). The contents of those documents are the factors used in determining the extent to which they are available or deniable under the Freedom of Information Law. ‘Third, based on the Judicial interpretation of the Freedom of Information Law, itis clear that public officers and employees enjoy a lesser degree of privacy than others, for It has been found in various contexts that thase individuals ‘re required ta be more accountable than thers. The courts have found that, as a general rule, records that are relevant to the performance of the official duties of those persons are available, for disclosure in such instences would result in a permissible rather than an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.o., Farrell v, Vilage Board of Trustees, 372 NYS 2d 905 (1975); Gannett Co. v. County of Monroe, 59 AD 2d 309 (1977), a'd 45 NY 2d 954 (1978); Sinicropiv. County of Nassau, 76 AD 26 838 (1980); Geneva Printing Co, and Danald C, Hadley v. Village of Lyons, Sup, Cr, Wayne Cty., March 25, 1981; Montes v, State, 406 NYS 2d 664 (Court of Claims, 1978); Powhida v, Gity of Albany, 147 AD 2d 236 (1989); Scaccla v, NYS Division of State Police, 530 NYS 2d 309, 138 AD 24°50 (1988); Steinmetz v, Board of ipdocs os. ny govlcagMentIN6428.Hm 48‘sonora ‘Weloame tothe Commitee an Oven Government lotiches, Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., NYLJ, Oct. 30, 1980); Capital Newspapers v, Burns, 67 NY 2d 562 (1986)]. Conversely, to the extent that items are irrelevant to the performance of their offcial duties, It has been found that disclosure would indeed constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [see e.9., Matter of Wool, Sup. Ct, ‘Nassau Gty., NYLI, Nov. 22, 1977, dealing with membership in a union; Minerva v, Vilage af Valley Stream, Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., May 20, 1981, involving the back of a check payable to a municipal attomey that could indicate how that person spends his/her money; Selia v, Slelaff, 200 AD 2d 298 (1994), concerning disclosure of social security numbers]. ‘There are numerous instances in which portions of personnel recards are available, while cthers are net. I would agree that records indicating charges or allegations that could not be proven or substantiated ray be withheld, However, from my perspective, a “performance improvement plan" or similar directive should generally be available, irrespective of whether it relates to a complaint or incident. When a board of education establishes goals and objectives to be met by a superintendent of schools, for example, I believe that a document of that nature is public, and that similar documents pertaining to other employees are equally accessible, In terms of the exception regarding unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, it Is clear that the record at Issue Is relevant If not critical to the performance of the duties of the emplayee in question. That being so, it appears that it would result in a permissible, not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, {A separate exception is also pertinent to an analysis of rights of access. That provision, however, due to its structure, often requires disclosure. Specifically, §87(2)(a) permits an agency provide in pertinent part that: "are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not: | statistical or factual tabulations or data; i, instructions to staff that effect the public; | final agency policy oF determinations; or iv. external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government..." It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative, While inter-agency or intra- agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, inal agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different ground for denial could appropriately be asserted. Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld. Concerning "instructions to staff that affect the public” and “fina agency policy or determinations’, which are generally available, respectively, under subparagraphs (li) and (il) of §87(2)(g) of the Freedom of Information Law, there Is little decisional lav that deals directly with those provisions. Typically, agency guidelines, procedures, staff manuals and the like provide direction to an agency's employees regarding the means by which they must perform their duties. Some may be "intemal", in that they deal solely with the relationship between an agency and Its staff. Others may provide direction in terms of the manner in which staff performs its duties in relation to or that affects the public, which would ordinary be accessible, To be distinguished would be advice, opinions or recommendations that may be accepted or rejected. An Instruction to staff, 2 policy or a determination, each would represent a matter that Is mandatory or directory in nature that would in my view be accessible pursuant to §87(2)(9)(l). In thls instance, it appears that the content in the performance improvement plan represents a mandate that instructs the individual in relation to duties that he performs concerning students. If that Is so, the cited provision in my view would require disclosure. Lastly, in affirming the Appellate Division decision in Capital Newspapers, a decision cited earlier, the state's highest court found that: "The Freedom of Information Law expresses this State's strong commitment to open government and public accountability and imposes a broad standard of disclosure upon the State and its agencies (see, Matter of Faraman & ‘Sons v New York City Health and Hosps, Corp,, 62 NY 2d 75, 79). The statute, enacted in furtherance of the publics vested and inherent ‘right to know’, affords all citizens the means to obtain information concerning the day-to-day functioning of State and local government thus providing the electorate with sufficient information 'to make intelligent, Informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities’ and with an effective tool for exposing waste, negligence and abuse on the part of government officers" (Capital Newspapers v. Burns, supra, 565- 566), Based on the preceding analysis, I belleve that the District must disclose the record of your interest. hope that I have been of assistance. Sincerely, Robert 3. Freeman Executive Director hitp/doos dos.ny-govlcooaiRextM&-20.im 23ranot Welcome tothe Commitee on Open Gaveerment Port ce: Board of Education William C. Congdon Judy Christiansen FOIL-AO-116429 16429 DOS Home | AtoZ Index | Applications | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Dissalmer | Contact Us | hito:docs dos my govcoogext Meza 38EXHIBIT GSTATE OF NEW YORK DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OFFICE OF COUNSEL 317 Lenox Avenue, th Floor New York, NY 10027 09/23/2014 WILLIAM S, NOLAN WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP 226 WARREN STREET HUDSON, NY 12534 RE: 2137844, ALBANY L 2137544 EMPIRE WINE & SPIRITS LLC 1440 CENTRAL AVE ALBANY, NY 12205 Docket 1998-2014/Case 88869 Dear Mr. Nolan: The Authority is hereby enclosing copies of documents totaling 227 pages as well as a USB flash drive containing further documents which may be introduced as evidence regarding the above-captioned case. Pursuant to the Stale Administrative Procedure act, Section 401(4), the Authority hereby demands that the licensee supply evidence that the licensee intends to introduce at a hearing including documentary evidence and identification of witnesses. The Authority reserves its right to provide supplemental discovery. Matters of an evidentiary nature, including but not limited to descriptions of person, distances, lighting conditions, names addresses and the felephone numbers of witnesses, statement made by witnesses, etc, will be provided only at the time of a hearing. Such information does not constitute the proper subject of a bill of particulars under the State Administrative Procedure Act. (212) 961-8316