Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. GATLING SALOON AND DANCE HALL CORP. (06/26/86)

decided: June 26, 1986.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, APPELLANT
v.
THE GATLING SALOON AND DANCE HALL CORP., APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the case of In Re: The Gatling Saloon and Dance Hall Corporation, t/a Eons, Restaurant Liquor License No. R-99951 and Amusement Permit No. AP-9951, Miscellaneous No. 358, July of 1984.

COUNSEL

Eileen S. Maunus, with her, Gary F. Di Vito, Counsel, and Felix Thau, Deputy Chief Counsel, for appellant.

Charles W. Boohar, with him, Robert Weinstock, Pelino & Lentz, P.C., for appellee.

Judges Barry and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 377]

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals here from an order of the Court of Common

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 378]

Pleas of Montgomery County which reversed a Board order imposing a four hundred dollar ($400) fine on the Gatling Saloon and Dance Hall (appellee).

Following a de novo hearing, the trial court found that, on June 22, 1983, two Board enforcement officers went to the appellee's premises and that, although Officer Linda Sylvester was admitted, the male officer was refused admission by the doorman on the basis that men were not allowed inside until after 9:00 P.M.*fn1 It was also found that another officer visited the subject premises on June 29, but that he was denied admission for the same reason; that the next day he filed his report with Officer Sylvester, who was supervising the investigation; and that neither male officer had any further knowledge of the investigation. The court further found that, sometime after June 30, 1983, Officer Sylvester was removed from her position with the Board, thereafter leaving the Board's employment; that about August 3, 1983 the investigation file was turned over to Officer Cochran; that she visited the subject premises on August 16, 1983, but found them closed; and that she sent the appellee a violation notice on August 19, 1983.

The trial court determined that the only activity subsequent to June 29, 1983 which concerned the premises was Officer Cochran's visit of August 16, and that the investigation was not a continuing one, but had ended as of June 30 when the Board's file was complete. It concluded that no penalty could be imposed because notice of the violation was not provided within ten days of the completion of the investigation as required by Section 471 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. ยง 4-471, which pertinently provides:

[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 379]

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 completion of the investigation which in no event shall exceed ninety days.

The Board contends that the trial court committed an error of law in concluding that notice of the violation was not sent within the statutory ten day period. It argues that, inasmuch as the point at which the ninety day period for conducting an investigation commences with the Board's decision to investigate, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Fort Washington Inn, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 542, 457 A.2d 172 (1983), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.