X

Blog

alcohol permit

Summary of ABCC Actions – November 2014

Posted On:  By: 

The Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC” or “Commission”) recently published five new decisions:

First, the ABCC ruled on an appeal from a Chicopee decision to deny a §15 all alcohol license transfer. In the appeal the appellant, Mormax Corporation d/b/a BJ’s Wholesalers, argued that the town’s decision to deny a license transferred from Winn Liquors, Inc. was arbitrary and capricious.

After a Local Board hearing on May 17, 2012, Chicopee cited two reasons for denying the transfer application: 1) the lack of public need or interest for another liquor license in the immediate area; and 2) an overflow crowd of individuals expressing opposition to the transfer at the public hearing.

The Commission found as the appellant argued that the decision from the local board was inadequate as it lacked legally sufficient ground by not setting forth anything other than insignificant general findings. The Commission noted that at least six residents who spoke in opposition were owners of competing package stores and two others were current or past employees of competing package stores. In doing so the Commission  restated in the decision that competition should not be considered when determining whether a license should be granted or transferred.

Further, the appellant argued, and the Commission agreed, that the Local Board failed to consider the “preferred zone” where the new licensee would be located which is separate from residential areas, close to where the original licensee operated, and in a commercial district with a portion of the residents coming from outside of the community.

The matter was remanded back to the local board with the recommendation that the license transfer be granted.

The Commission also held a hearing regarding a violation of 204 CMR 2.05 at Pier 37 Boathouse in Falmouth. After an investigation it was found that the licensee had failed to complete the fire and building safety checklist as prescribed by the Fire Marshal prior to each opening. The licensee stipulated to the violation and the Commission suspended the license for 16 days of which nine days were held in abeyance for a period of two years.

In April, the Commission held a hearing regarding licensee Ancient Marinere in Foxborough. Investigators allegedly discovered fruit flies in multiple liquor bottles during an investigation on August 23, 2013. Citing a violation of 204 CMR 2.05(2) to wit: M.G.L. c. 94 § 186, the ABCC suspended the license for two days with the full suspension in abeyance for a period of two years.

The Commission heard an appeal from a Grafton decision to revoke a §15 wine and malt beverage license from Village Dairy after a sting operation allegedly caught the licensee selling alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 in violation of M.G.L. c. 138 § 34. The Commission found that the penalty by the board was unreasonable as the Commission has consistently held that the policy behind a sting operation should be the education of licensees in the risks associated with selling alcoholic beverages without requesting proof age.

The Commission remanded to the Local Board with the recommendation the license be suspended for 20 days and that the licensee submit an application for a change of manager.

Finally, the Commission held a hearing regarding an alleged violation at East Side Athletic Assn. of Malden. There investigators found three devices in the club characterized as gambling devices. After finding there was a violation of 204 CMR 2.05(i) the Commission suspended the license for 20 days with 5 days held in abeyance. The devices were removed and the licensee was ordered not to possess any automatic amusement devices or video poker machines.

ABCC Issues Advisory On New Sunday Opening Time

Posted On:  By: 

This month the ABCC released an advisory  highlighting and explaining the new changes to Sunday opening times for off-premise licensees.

Effective on October 23, 2014 off-premise licensees may sell alcoholic beverages beginning at 10:00 a.m on Sundays. However, this new opening time does not come without certain actions that must be taken by the licensee.

In the advisory the ABCC writes, “Although under the law, these licensees are entitled as a matter of right to open at 10:00 a.m. and as such do not need the approval of the Local Licensing Authorities, licensees must notify the Local Licensing Authorities about the change of hours.”

This step should not be an overwhelming deterrence to the new early opening times as it can be completed by following the the change of hours process found on the ABCC’s website. Through this process licensees will be able to notify their local licensing authority of their new opening time. Since the law does not go into effect for another twenty days this gives licensees plenty of time to complete this process in time for early opening.

If a licensees fails to follow this process the licensee will be prohibited from making sales at the earlier time.

Bottle-Keep Service Comes to Boston

Posted On:  By: 

A new restaurant will soon be opening in Downtown Crossing and with a unique service that will set it apart from other options in the city. Mast’ Restaurant located at 145 Province Street will have a bottle-keep service, which according to general manager Nicholas Garoufalis does not exist anywhere else in the city.

A bottle-keep service allows patrons to store unfinished bottles of liquor at the restaurant in their name for future use. The bottle will be kept in the name of the purchaser at the restaurant and can also be gifted to other friends. This service is seen in other parts of the country and is popular oversees in places like Japan.

204 C.M.R. 2.18 allows a section 12 licensee to reseal a bottle of wine for a purchaser to take off the premises. The regulation does not address liquors, or resealing to keep at the licensed premises.

204-4.03 prohibits certain practices which are close to the bottle-keep service but are factually different. These include:

(a) offer or deliver any free drinks to any person or group of persons;

(b) deliver more than two drinks to one person at one time;

(c) sell, offer to sell or deliver to any person or group of persons any
drinks at a price less than the price regularly charged for such drinks
during the same calendar week, except at private functions not open to
the public;

(d) sell, offer to sell or deliver to any person an unlimited number of
drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price, except at private
functions not open to the public;

(e) sell, offer to sell or deliver drinks to any person or group of
persons on any one day at prices less than those charged the general
public on that day, except at private functions not open to the public;

(f) sell, offer to sell or deliver malt beverages or mixed drinks by the
pitcher except to two or more persons at any one time;

(g) increase the volume of alcoholic beverages contained in a drink
without increasing proportionately the price regularly charged for such
drink during the same calendar week;

(h) encourage or permit, on the licensed premises, any game or contest
which involves drinking or the awarding of drinks as prizes.

The difference is that Mast’ will likely keep a regular price list for the bottle, only provide one drink from the bottle at a time, and possibly keep the price per drink in proportion to the single drink prices. Because this service differs slightly from bottle service it may cause change to how the licensing board views these services and how restaurants offer them.

The novelty of the service, and potentially the popularity of it, will determine whether it catches on at other Boston restaurants.

New “Direct Wine Shipper” License Included In State Budget

Posted On:  By: 

The FY 2015 state budget signed by Governor Deval Patrick last week includes a provision that creates a new Direct Wine Shipper license in Massachusetts. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015 and will take Massachusetts off of a dwindling list of states that bar direct wine shipping, a list that includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah. This change in Massachusetts law comes after intense pressure by industry groups and local sports figures.

The new law requires wineries, vineyards, or manufacturers to apply for a state-issued shipping license and pay a $300 fee, with a $150 renewal fee every year. All shipped packages must be marked to require a signature upon deliver with the words “CONTAINS ALCOHOL: REQUIRES SIGNATURE OF AND PERSONAL DELIVERT TO A PERSON LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO CONSUME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE COMMONWEALTH” with a seal of licensure. The wine must be purchased and shipped to a Massachusetts resident who is 21 years of age and older. The new license allows shippers to deliver no more than 12 cases of wine to consumers each year.

Any person, firm, or corporation who violates these new provisions will be deemed to have engaged in a deceptive act or practice under chapter 93A and may be subject to license suspension or fines.

The new law does not address the delivery-truck law which requires a delivery permit for each truck involved in the delivery of alcohol, at a cost of $200 per permit. Most states allow for one permit to cover an entire freight company. According to the Boston Globe, State Representative Ted Speliotis of Danvers will push for a fleet-wide permit system if the existing law has a detrimental effect to wine shippers.

Summary of ABCC Actions – June 2014

Posted On:  By: 

Ten recent decisions by the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC” or “Commission”) were published in early June.

One “automatic amusement device” case was brought against a licensee, the Knights of Columbus lodge in Wakefield, for permitting gambling on its premises in violation of 204 CMR 2.05(2).  Two machines located in a room near the entrance were determined by investigators to be gambling devices.  The manager reported that the lodge had arranged a 50-50 proceeds split with the owner of the machines.  The licensee was ordered to have the devices removed immediately and the Commission suspended the license for ten days, with five days to be served and five days to be held in abeyance for two years, provided that no further violations occur.

Two cases involved restaurant licensees charged with purchasing alcoholic beverages from package stores (rather than from wholesalers, importers or manufacturers).  Whaleback Restaurant (Bourne) and Combination Improvement Club (Methuen) each stipulated to allegations of sales of alcoholic beverages purchased from a §15 package store, in violation of M.G.L. c. 138 § 23.  Evidence of the transgressions included admissions from the licensee, package store stickers on bottles and evidence of glue-like substances in the shape of a retail price sticker. Because the licensees had been in business for lengthy periods of time (10 years and more than 50 years, respectively) without a record of previous violations, the Commission issued each a warning.

Five “sale to minor decisions” were published, with four of the five cases involving “sting operations,” in which ABCC Investigators utilized underage operatives to attempt to purchase alcohol on licensed premises:

Licensees Sinnis Pub (Dudley) and Kwik Stop (Dudley) each stipulated to allegations of making a sale or delivery of alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age after an underage operative working with ABCC investigators purchased alcohol without being asked for identification.  Because each licensee had been in business for ten years with no previous violations, the Commission issued each a warning.  Similarly, licensee Vorelli’s (Provincetown) was determined to have permitted the sale or delivery of an alcoholic beverage to a minor when an underage operative was in possession of an alcoholic beverage on its premises and was not asked for identification.  Because the licensee had been in business for more than thirty-five years with no previous violations, the Commission issued a warning.  Nor’east Beer Garden (Provincetown) also stipulated to a sale or delivery to an underage person after failing to request ID from an operative; a three day suspension was issued, to be held in abeyance for two years, provided that no further violations occur.

Bay State Wine & Spirits (Canton) was also investigated for alleged sales or deliveries of alcoholic beverages to underage individuals, partially in response to information provided to the ABCC by the Canton Police Department.  During a span of thirty minutes on an evening in October 2013, Investigators recorded two sales to underage individuals using a fraudulent ID (neither individual working with ABCC investigators) on the premises.  Subsequent to the incidents, the licensee made efforts to institute additional employee training and to confiscate fraudulent identification. The Commission suspended the license for five days, with the suspension to be held in abeyance for two years provided that no further violations occur.

Acting on an anonymous complaint filed with the Commission, ABCC Investigators reported a violation of M.G.L. c. 94 § 186 at The End Zone Sports Pub (Mendon) for falling below standards of purity.  Investigators reported finding twelve alcoholic beverage bottles that contained foreign matter (fruit flies).  Because the licensee had been in business for 10 years with no previous violations, the Commission issued a warning.

Finally, the license of the Hillside Country Club (Rehoboth) had previously been indefinitely suspended for violations of M.G.L. 151A §§ 14 and 15 (regarding payroll taxes).  Based on evidence introduced at a hearing in November 2013 that demonstrated the licensee’s good standing with the state and with wholesalers, the indefinite suspension was reversed to a suspension of time served (from January 17, 2013 to October 5, 2013).

Summary of ABCC Actions – May 2014

Posted On:  By: 

Fourteen recent decisions by the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (“ABCC” or “Commission”) were published in early May.   Eleven of the fourteen decisions involved allegations of sales of alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21, two concerned “automatic amusement devices”, and one the rules for “club” licenses.  The moral of the May decisions?  If you have to be a liquor licensee caught violating a liquor law, be in business for many years before that happens – and don’t let it happen twice!

The club license decision was perhaps the most unusual.  The Polish American Citizens Club of Webster received an indefinite suspension from the Commission in July of last year for failing to file annual reports with the ABCC for the years 2003 – 2012, and also for having changed officers and directors without appropriate approvals from local and state licensing authorities.  The Club brought its records up to date, and the ABCC rescinded the indefinite suspension.  However, the Club went without a license from the end of July to the beginning of November.  The decision serves as a reminder to club licensees of the need to file annual reports with the ABCC concerning their officers and their compensation.

The two “automatic amusement devices” cases were brought for having such devices (which are licensed under M.G.L. c. 140 §177A) in rooms that were closed off and not in open view at all times.  The Commission cited the licensees under the Alcoholic Beverages laws for “permitting an illegality” on their premises, in violation of 204 CMR 2.05(2).  Each of the licensees installed “see-through” doors after the date they were cited but before the hearing, and was given a warning by the Commission, which noted that each licensee had been in operation for many years without previous violations (for 22 years and “over 100 years”, respectively).

Turning to the “sales to minor” decisions, ten of the eleven concerned “sting operations,” where ABCC Investigators send an underage operative into a licensed premises to attempt to purchase alcohol.  In the eleventh case, the ABCC investigators encountered an under-aged patron who had already been served an alcoholic beverage without benefit of a “sting”.  In each of the eleven decisions, the licensee stipulated to the violation, so only the penalty portion of the ABCC’s decision was really at issue.

Six of the eleven licensees were given warnings, mostly due to having been in business for extended periods without any previous violations. These included:  Panchos Mexican Restaurant (Pittsfield) (over ten years); Plainville Liquors (Plainville package store) (nineteen years); South Liquor Mart (Plainville package store) (more than twenty years); Xtra Mart (Spencer package store) (more than twenty years); and Powers Restaurant & Café (West Springfield restaurant) (a truly remarkable more than sixty years with no previous violations).  Another licensee with no previous violations was also given a warning, Rama Wine & Spirits (Norwood package store), not because of the length of time it had been in business, but because “The Commission considered the extenuating circumstances which occurred at the time of the offense and which later resulted in the death of the clerk’s family member…..”  The Commission did not elaborate within their decision as to the specific nature of the “extenuating circumstances”.

Four more licensees were presumably first time violators, but perhaps not in business for such significant periods of time, as they were each given three day suspensions, to be held in abeyance for two years provided no further violations occur.  These four included Seaside Wine & Spirits (New Bedford package store); The Thirsty Whale (Newburyport restaurant); King Jade Restaurant (Northridge); and Sharon Market (Sharon package store).

The last “stung” licensee was Knox Trail Inn (Otis).  Within the previous two (2) years, the Commission had already found a violation and ordered a three (3) day suspension, to be held in abeyance provided no further violations occurred.  Accordingly, for this second violation within two years, the Commission suspended the license for four days, of which two will be served and two to be held in abeyance for two years provided no further violations occur.  Plus, the Commission reinstated the prior suspension, so the licensee will serve a total of five (5) days, with two to be held in abeyance.

Supermarkets and Alcohol Permits

Posted On:  By: 

Two ballot questions to change the law regarding the sale of alcohol in supermarkets were recently filed with the State Attorney General. The Boston Herald reports that the MA Food Association is attempting to increase the total amount of permits that can be held by any one chain.

Currently, Massachusetts law restricts an individual or corporate entity to holding no more than three alcohol permits. This means that a supermarket chain can only sell alcohol from a maximum of three of its locations, regardless of how many individual stores are in the state. This generally explains why certain supermarkets sell beer and wine from only a few locations and not others. Supermarkets must choose which three stores will sell alcohol, which can create problems in store uniformity and customer expectations.

Supermarkets and many customers have been pushing for this law to be changed for years. Senate Bill 1851, if approved by the legislature, would increase the amount of licenses available to a supermarket chain from three to twenty. The bill would also restrict the number of licenses that could be held by a supermarket chain to one per town and two per city. The local licensing authorities would still have to approve a permit application for each location and all alcohol permit quotas would still apply.

It remains to be seen whether Attorney General Martha Coakley will certify either ballot question or whether the legislature will vote favorably on Senate Bill 1851. Needless to say, change could be coming to a supermarket near you but don’t plan to drink-up just yet.

Copyright © 2024 HURWITZ, RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP,. All rights reserved.