Return to Browsing

9 N.J.A.R. 365

Holly Golf and Country Club, Inc., Alcoholic Beverage Control, Division of v
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 9 N.J.A.R. 365
Decision Date: 1984
Synopsis: The Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued an order to show cause as to why respondent's club license should not be cancelled and declared null and void for having been improperly issued. The respondent was charged with a failure to keep records as required by N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.8 and N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.12: with a failure to submit a list of club members with its license application in violation of N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.7: with a violation of N.J.A.C. 13:2-8(a) when it served liquor to auxiliary members: with a hinderance of an investiga- tion of its license: and with a violation of N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.2 in that the licensee was not a bona fide club. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that no evidence had been presented to show that respondent had hosted any events attended by non-members. Since it was only events of this type of which records had to be kept, respondent could not be found to have violated N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.8 and N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.12. As to the charge that the club failed to submit a list of members with its application, the judge determined that while the respondent had viol- ated N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.7'by failing to submit a list of members with its license applications for the years from 1975 until 1983, testimony clearly established that the local issuing authority had never requested the list, and that the Division itself never rejected the applications based upon the missing lists. The judge found same to mitigate against the violation and thus an eight-day suspension was found to be ap- propriate. The judge found that while the respondent had violated N.,I.A.C. 13:2-8.1 by allowing auxiliary club members to be considered club members and thus eligible to be served alcohok he recommended that mitigating circumstances were present and thus no penalty should be imposed. The judge determined that the respondent had not hindered an investigation because, although it did not turn over all requested documentation, the club stated and he found that it had turned over all information which was in its possession. While the judge found that respondent was not operating as a bona fide club, he determined that because the respondent had attempted to correct the situation it should have its license suspended until the defects were corrected in lieu of a license revocation. Upon review of this initial decision the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control accepted the judge's basic factual find- ings but rejected the judge's conclusions of law and recommended penalties. The Director rejected the judge's recommendation that the license merely be suspended until the defects were corrected because the Director determined that the present licensee, a for-profit corpo- ration, could not realistically be converted into a not-for-profit cor- poration as required by the statute and regulations. The Director determined that since respondent had been found not to be a bona fide club, the only appropriate course of action was revocation of the license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 33:1- 12(5) and N.J.A.C. 13:2-8.2. He further advised, however, that if in the future a new entity is organized for the proper purpose, and for the benefit of the club members as a not-for-profit association, said entity could apply for issuance of a new club license. Accordingly, the Director ordered revocation of respondent's license. Carol L. Widennon, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) Lewis J. Schweller, Esq., for respondent (previously Lewis J. Smith, Esq.) (Valore, McAllister, Westmoreland, Gould, Vesper & Schwartz, attorneys)
Rule(s) Cited: 13:2-8.2 13:2-8.7 
Citation Tracker modified-Div. of A.B.C.; affirmed -App. Div., A-5546-83, 5/9/85 (unreported) [Updated through 1991]