Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of In the Matter of Revocation of Hotel Liquor License No. H-4868, Amusement Permit No. AP-21216 and Sunday Sales Permit No. SS-158, issued to -- Quaker City Development Co., Inc., Penrose Avenue & Penrose Ferry Road, Philadelphia, Pa., No. 2116 October Term, 1975.
Michael D. Fioretti, with him Peruto, Ryan & Vitullo, for appellant.
J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, with him Harry Bowytz, Chief Counsel, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
Appellant-corporation owns and operates a motor inn in Philadelphia for which it holds a hotel liquor license. Appellant leased its banquet facilities to the Optimist Club of South Philadelphia, a charitable organization, for March 8 and 9, 1975. The Optimist Club used the facilities to conduct a casino night at which gambling took place and liquor was served. Because appellant's liquor license was under suspension, it did not sell or provide liquor and/or malt or brewed beverages to the persons attending rather, the Optimist Club served all the liquor for the evenings in question.
On April 15, 1975, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) issued a citation against the appellant. After a hearing, the Board found:
"1. The licensee permitted other persons to provide and sell liquor and/or malt or brewed beverages on its licensed premises, on March 8, 9, 1975.
"2. The licensee, by its servants, agents or employes permitted gambling on the licensed premises, on March 8, 9, 1975."
After considering prior citations and penalties, the Board revoked the appellant's license. The revocation was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and this appeal followed.
A review of the record indicates that the findings of the Board are supported by competent evidence. Indeed, either finding of fact constitutes "sufficient cause" under Section 471 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 4-471, to justify revocation of appellant's license. Violations of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth are grounds for revocation, I.B.P.O.E. Liquor License Case, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 395, 62 A.2d 68 (1948), and permitting gambling on the premises is a violation of Section 5513 of the Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. § 101 et seq. Neither the charitable purposes to which the proceeds are put nor the failure of the local district attorney to prosecute such cases makes the gambling any less of a violation. Permitting liquor to be served by others on the premises during the period of the suspension independently justifies license revocation. "Sufficient cause" is not limited to violations of law. Petty Liquor License Case, 216 Pa. Superior Ct. 55, 258 A.2d 874 (1969).
Appellant urges that the "upon any other sufficient cause shown" provision of Section 471 of the Liquor Code, upon which the revocation is based, is unconstitutionally vague, indefinite and overbroad. This contention must fail as it did in ...