DocketNumber: No. CV95-0555647 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9176
Judges: McWEENY, J.
Filed Date: 11/12/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The Plaintiffs are Kenneth Matthews, Permittee and Howard-Adam Corporation, backer of Harvey's Wine Spirit Shoppe, West Hartford, Connecticut.
The respondent is the State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection Liquor Control Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). CT Page 9177
The facts underlying the appeal are substantially undisputed. On November 19, 1994, two young man, Pelletier and Burr, entered Plaintiffs' package store. The store is a self service outlet wherein customers take the product from coolers or shelves to a counter where the product is purchased. Pelletier and Burr on the date in question, carried several cases of beer and other bottles of alcoholic beverages to the counter.
Pelletier proposed to pay for the selections and was asked by Plaintiffs' agent for proof of age identification, Pelletier produced a driver's license indicating an age of twenty-one. Pelletier then paid for all the items. Both young men carried the beer from the store. Burr was not asked for proof of age, and was in fact eighteen years of age on November 19, 1994.
Pelletier was only nineteen years of age at the time of the transaction, but in view of the false identification, the Commission limited its action to an alleged sale or delivery to Burr.
The Commission found a violation of General Statutes §
Section
The Commission notified Plaintiffs on or about March 23, 1995 of the alleged violation of §
The basis of the decision was essentially stated as follows: "While Mr. Pelletier was a minor at the time of the incident, we have given the Respondent (Plaintiffs) the benefit of the doubt on the apparent validity of the proffered identification and find against the Respondent based on the companion Mr. Burr's presence and participation." CT Page 9178
The participation of Mr. Burr was found to have included carrying cases of beer to the purchase counter, and carrying three cases of beer from the store after Mr. Pelletier purchased the beer with the false identification.
The issue presented is whether Plaintiffs sold or delivered alcoholic liquor to a minor (Burr) by allowing him to carry it to the purchase counter and remove it from the store.
A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes §
Furthermore, "Judicial review of conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion." Conn. Light Power Co. v. Dept. of Public UtilityControl,
"Judicial review of [an administrative agency's] action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (General Statutes, c. 54,
Nevertheless, where "the issue is one of law, the court has the broader responsibility of determining whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed from such facts. Although the court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion." United Parcel Service, Inc. v.Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act,
Plaintiffs cite Koval v. Liquor Control Commission,
The Supreme Court in Koval, supra, went on to cite with approval a New York case which is very close on the facts, Matterof Erin Wine Liquor Store, Inc.,
The Commission concludes that the minor, Burr, participated in the sale. This is simply not the case, he merely transported what was legally the property of the purchaser, Mr. Pelletier.
Clearly there are strong policy reasons for protecting minors from access to alcoholic liquor, but the Plaintiffs are charged with sale or delivery under a statute with criminal sanctions under §
The appeal is sustained. The Liquor Control Commission is ordered to vacate all sanctions against the Plaintiffs entered by its decision of October 19, 1995.
Robert F. McWeeny, J.