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.

HOSPITALITY INVESTMENTS SOCIETY HILL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/06/88)

decided: December 6, 1988.

HOSPITALITY INVESTMENTS OF SOCIETY HILL, INC., T/A PT'S, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in the case of Hospitality Investments of Society Hill, Inc. t/a PT'S, No. P.L.C.B. 84-11-2804.

COUNSEL

Gary F. DiVito, Goldstein, Friedberg, Kelly and DiVito, P.C., for appellant.

Faith S. Diehl, Assistant Counsel, with her, Kenneth B. Skelly, Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Judges Barry and Smith, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick. Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Narick

[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 487]

Hospitality Investments of Society Hill, Inc. (Appellant) has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing its appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) imposing a fifteen-day suspension of its liquor license. We affirm.

Appellant was cited by the Board for two violations: permitting entertainers to contact and/or associate with patrons on the licensed premises and Sunday sales without

[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 488]

    a permit. A hearing was held before a Board examiner at which the Board offered the testimony of an enforcement officer. Appellant presented no evidence. On Appellant's appeal to common pleas court, the parties agreed to submit the matter to the court on the Board hearing record. The trial court entered an order affirming the Board's fifteen-day suspension on December 5, 1986. An opinion in support of that order was filed April 21, 1987.

Appellant first argues that it is entitled to a remand because the trial court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law. This argument is patently without merit; the trial court's opinion included in the original record contains detailed findings and conclusions, albeit not expressly labeled as such. Appellant has not appended a copy of this opinion to its brief in violation of Pa. R.A.P. 2111(b) and appears ignorant of its existence.*fn1 As Appellant has failed to avail itself of the opportunity to challenge the trial court's findings, we shall accept those findings as conclusive for purposes of this appeal.*fn2

Those findings are as follows:

On 25 October, 1983, Patricia Cochran, a Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Enforcement Officer paid two dollars cover charge to enter the ...


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.