Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of In the Matter of the Revocation of Restaurant Liquor License No. R-2282 and Amusement Permit No. AP-2282, Issued To: Tris-Dad, Inc., No. 80-07-2408.
J. Leonard Langan, Chief Counsel, with him David Shotel, Assistant Counsel, for appellant.
Edward A. Taraskus, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 177]
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (LCB) appeals a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court order reversing a fine imposed on Tris-Dad, Inc. We reverse.
The LCB imposed a $750.00 fine for two violations of the Liquor Code:*fn1 serving alcoholic beverages to minors and permitting lewd, immoral or improper entertainment on the licensed premises. After the trial court conducted a de novo hearing, it reversed the fine.
Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's order is supported by sufficient evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Skowronek Liquor License Case, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 423, 379 A.2d 906 (1977).
The trial court reversed the finding of a violation of Section 4-493(1), prohibiting service to minors, on the basis that the nineteen-year old served looked to be twenty-one. This was an error of law. This Court has held that:
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 178]
The physical characteristics of the minors is not a defense, since the record reveals that neither of the minors was ever asked to present identification.
In the Matter of Revocation of Restaurant Liquor License No. R-2282 and Amusement Permit No. AP-2282, Issued to TRIS-DAD, INC., 63 pa. Commonwealth Ct. 565, 567, 439 A.2d 1286, 1287 (1981). Here, the record indicates that the minor served was never asked to present identification.*fn2 Thus, it was error for the trial court to reverse the fine for this violation.
As to the charge of allowing lewd behavior, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in reversing ...