In Re: Appeal of 2856 Yan Corp. From Decision of PA LCB ~ Appeal of: 2856 Yan Corp. ( 2023 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In Re: Appeal of 2856 Yan Corp. :
:
From Decision of Pennsylvania : No. 555 C.D. 2022
Liquor Control Board : Submitted: June 5, 2023
:
Appeal of: 2856 Yan Corp. :
BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: June 26, 2023
Appellant 2856 Yan Corp. (Licensee) appeals from an order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), which, following a de
novo hearing, affirmed the decision of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
(PLCB) denying Licensee’s restaurant liquor license renewal under the Liquor
Code,1 based on seven prior citations, including three citations for failure to operate
as a bona fide restaurant. Licensee contends that the trial court’s findings are not
based on substantial evidence; the trial court abused its discretion given the de
minimis nature of the violations; and the trial court erred in refusing to find that
Licensee had taken affirmative corrective actions. Upon review, we affirm.
1
Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §§1-101 – 10-1001.
Licensee filed an application with the PLCB for the renewal of
Pennsylvania Restaurant Liquor License No. R-832 (license) for the premises
located at 2854-56 North 22nd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (licensed
premises) for the period beginning November 1, 2020, and ending October 31, 2022.
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 29a-32a. The PLCB’s Bureau of Licensing (Bureau),
pursuant to Section 470 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-470, notified Licensee that
it was objecting to the renewal. The Bureau asserted that Licensee abused its
licensing privilege based on prior citations and the failure to operate as a bona fide
restaurant. In addition, the Bureau asserted that Licensee’s President, Stockholder
and Manager, Yan Chen, was not a responsible person of good repute and/or has
become a person of ill repute. R.R. at 35a.
Pursuant to Section 464 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-464, a hearing
on the nonrenewal was held on January 11, 2021, before a PLCB hearing examiner.
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, the hearing examiner
recommended the denial of the renewal application. R.R. at 200a. Following review
of the record and the hearing examiner’s recommendation, by order dated October
27, 2021, the PLCB refused Licensee’s renewal application. Id. at 122a.
Licensee appealed to the trial court.2 At the hearing, the PLCB offered
into evidence the complete record of the proceedings before the PLCB hearing
examiner. The trial court considered the matter de novo based upon consideration
of the certified record, including the hearing examiner’s proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law, the PLCB’s opinion, and the parties’ briefs and arguments.
By order dated May 4, 2022, the trial court affirmed the PLCB’s decision and denied
Licensee’s appeal. R.R. at 235a. Licensee then filed an appeal with this Court.
2
Thereafter, the PLCB issued an opinion in support of its order. See R.R. at 167a-87a.
2
At the direction of the trial court, Licensee filed a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement of errors complained of on appeal (1925(b) Statement), asserting the same
issues raised herein. On October 7, 2022, the trial court issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a)
Opinion setting forth the reasons for its decision.3 R.R. at 269a-82a. The trial court
addressed the assignments of error and set forth the various factors that supported
affirming the PLCB’s denial of the renewal application. The trial court
independently evaluated the evidence that was presented to the PLCB hearing
examiner. The trial court reviewed Licensee’s citation history as reflected in the
Bureau’s exhibits. Between 2016 and 2019, Licensee received seven citations,
which Licensee did not dispute. Two of the citations were for operating the licensed
premises without a valid health license; two were for selling alcohol for off-premises
consumption; and three were for failing to act as a bona fide restaurant based on
insufficient seating. Although Licensee offered evidence regarding corrective
measures taken in response to the citations, the trial court found that the steps were
not taken in good faith, noting Licensee repeated the violations after undertaking
corrective measures. In response to Licensee’s argument that the trial court abused
its discretion on the basis that the citations were de minimis in nature, the trial court
3
A trial court reviewing a decision of the PLCB not to renew a liquor license hears the
matter de novo and makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. Section 464 of the
Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-464; Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement
v. Cantina Gloria’s Lounge, Inc., 639 A.2d 14, 16 (Pa. 1994). Although the trial court did not
render its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, or adopt the PLCB’s, the trial court’s
opinion thoroughly sets forth the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for its decision to permit
meaningful appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 832 A.2d 1123, 1126 (Pa. Super.
2003) (an appellate court “may look at the trial court’s [Pa. R.A.P.] 1925(a) opinion to garner
findings of fact and conclusions of law”).
3
explained that Licensee’s citation history showed that Licensee was incapable of
following the most basic requirements.4
On appeal,5 Licensee contends that substantial evidence does not
support the refusal to renew Licensee’s license. Although Licensee admits to its
citation history and recognizes that a citation for a single violation of the Liquor
Code may justify the nonrenewal of a license, Licensee maintains that the de minimis
nature of its violations does not support nonrenewal. Most of the violations involved
insufficient seating or square footage, which Licensee corrected. When compared
to other nonrenewal cases, which typically involve far more egregious violations,
the trial court abused its discretion in affirming the nonrenewal. Further, the trial
court erred by not giving Licensee credit for taking affirmative steps to correct the
violations. By the PLCB’s own admission, Licensee corrected the deficiencies.
After reviewing the record, Licensee’s brief, and the relevant law, we
conclude that the appellate issues have been ably resolved in the thorough and well-
reasoned opinion of the Honorable Anne Marie B. Coyle. Therefore, we affirm the
trial court’s order on the basis of her opinion in the matter of In re: Appeal of 2865
Yan Corp. (C.P. Philadelphia, No. 211002399, filed October 7, 2022).
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
4
Licensee also sought reconsideration and supersedeas, which the trial court denied. See
R.R. at 268a.
5
Our review in a liquor license renewal case is limited to a determination of whether the
trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether it abused its discretion,
or whether it committed an error of law. First Ward Republican Club of Philadelphia v.
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board., 11 A.3d 38, 43 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In Re: Appeal of 2856 Yan Corp. :
:
From Decision of Pennsylvania : No. 555 C.D. 2022
Liquor Control Board :
:
Appeal of: 2856 Yan Corp. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2023, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated May 4, 2022, is AFFIRMED.
__________________________________
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) D. DRAYTON 10/07/2022