Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in case of In the matter of revocation of restaurant Liquor License No. R-17844 and Amusement Permit No. AP-17844, issued to Arthur A. Banks, t/a Otto's Atmosphere, No. 117 M.D. 1983.
Norman M. Yoffe, Norman M. Yoffe, P.C., for appellant.
Felix Thau, Assistant Counsel, with him, Gary F. DiVito, Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Judges MacPhail, Colins and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 170]
This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, which fined Arthur Banks, owner and licensee of Otto's Atmosphere (Licensee)*fn1 for violating the Liquor Code (Code).*fn2
[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 171]
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) had ordered the Licensee to pay a fine of $1,000 because it found that the Licensee had permitted the sale of liquor to minors on August 28, 1982 and that the Licensee had three previous citations. The trial court, after a de novo hearing, found that the Licensee had furnished a malt beverage to one minor and had permitted other minors to frequent the licensed premises. Because the facts found by the trial court differed from those found by the Board, the court entered an order directing the Licensee to pay a fine of $200.*fn3 This appeal followed.
Three issues are presented by the Licensee in this appeal. The Licensee first contends that the trial court erred when it found that a violation had been committed by a minor who obtained an alcoholic beverage through the intercession of an adult. This Court has previously held that the purchase of an alcoholic beverage by an adult for a minor's consumption does not relieve the Licensee from the duty to prevent such beverages from being furnished to a minor. Matter of Revocation of Restaurant Liquor License, 78 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 159, 467 A.2d 85 (1983).
The Licensee next contends that the trial court erred when it found that minors had frequented the licensed premises when the evidence disclosed only one such occasion. In fact, two of the witnesses testified at the de novo hearing that they had frequented the licensed premises as minors on occasions prior to August 28, 1982.
The Licensee finally contends that no penalty can be imposed in this case because the Board failed to prove that it had complied with the provisions of Section 471 of the Code which reads in pertinent part as follows:
[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 172]
No penalty provided by this section shall be imposed by the board or any court for any violations provided for in this act unless the enforcement officer or the board notifies the licensee of its nature and of the date of the alleged violation within ten days of the ...