1616 Second Ave. Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
Decision Date | 11 January 1990 |
Parties | , 550 N.E.2d 910 In the Matter of 1616 SECOND AVENUE RESTAURANT, INC., Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Richard D. Emery and Pamela M. Parker, New York City, for appellant.
Sharon L. Tillman, Stephen D. Kalinsky and Roberta L. Hiller, Hillcrest, for respondents.
The issue on this appeal is whether public statements made by the Chairman of the State Liquor Authority (SLA) concerning charges then pending in an SLA proceeding against a licensee, disqualified the Chairman from participating in the administrative review of that proceeding. We conclude that, because the Chairman's statements to a legislative oversight committee indicated prejudgment of facts in issue in an adjudicatory proceeding, his failure to disqualify himself from that proceeding deprived the licensee of due process of law under the Federal Constitution.
Petitioner 1616 Second Avenue Restaurant, Inc., operates a Manhattan restaurant known as Dorrian's Red Hand. Since 1962, Dorrian's has sold alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption pursuant to a license issued by respondent SLA. In August 1986, attention was focused on Dorrian's because of its connection with the highly publicized "preppie murder" case: the young victim and the accused killer, Robert Chambers, had been in Dorrian's on August 26, shortly before the crime. As a result, the SLA and the New York City Police Department's Social Club Task Force began to closely monitor Dorrian's for violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, especially those involving underage drinkers.
On February 10, 1987, Dorrian's was charged by the SLA with violating section 65(1) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law by allegedly selling or giving away alcoholic beverages to four underage patrons on November 14-16, 1986. Two of the charges were sustained following a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge commenced on April 15, 1987. The findings were controverted by petitioner and the matter was referred to the five Commissioners of the SLA, including its Chairman, respondent Thomas Duffy, for factual review and for determination of an appropriate penalty (see, 9 NYCRR 54.4[g]; 54.6[a].
In the interim between the filing of the charges and the commencement of the hearing, Chairman Duffy had been called upon to testify before a committee of the New York State Senate that oversees SLA operations. The questioning covered a wide range of topics, but for a time focused on the issue of underage drinking and the charges against Dorrian's. Duffy's public discussion of the charges prompted petitioner to request that Duffy recuse himself from consideration of the charges against Dorrian's on the ground that he had prejudged the matter. Chairman Duffy declined to do so and, with his participation, the Commissioners adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge and imposed a 10-day suspension, a 10-day deferred suspension and a $1,000 bond claim.
Petitioner then commenced this article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the SLA's determination. Upon transfer from Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), the Appellate Division confirmed the determination without comment, 141 A.D.2d 1008, 530 N.Y.S.2d 423. We granted leave to consider whether the Chairman's public statements disqualified him from participating in the SLA proceeding. Concluding that they did, we now reverse.
Before examining the substance of the Chairman's statements, we turn to the governing principles.
It is beyond dispute that an impartial decision maker is a core guarantee of due process, fully applicable to adjudicatory proceedings before administrative agencies (Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1463-65, 43 L.Ed.2d 712; Matter of Warder v. Board of Regents, 53 N.Y.2d 186, 197, 440 N.Y.S.2d 875, 423 N.E.2d 352; State Administrative Procedure Act § 303). No single standard determines whether an administrative decision maker should disqualify himself from a proceeding for lack of impartiality (see, 3 Davis, Administrative Law § 19:1 [2d ed. 1978]. Many concepts are embraced under the heading of bias, including advance knowledge of facts, personal interest, animosity, favoritism and prejudgment. Not all require disqualification in all circumstances. Disqualification is more likely to be required where an administrator has a preconceived view of facts at issue in a specific case as opposed to prejudgment of general questions of law or policy (see, id., §§ 19:2, 19:4).
For example, administrative officials are expected to be familiar with the subjects of their regulation and to be committed to the goals for which their agency was created. Thus, a predisposition on questions of law or policy and advance knowledge of general conditions in the regulated field are common, and it is expected that they will influence an administrator engaged in a legislative role such as rule making (see, Association of Natl. Advertisers v. Federal Trade Commn., 627 F.2d 1151, 1168-1169 [D.C.Cir.]; see generally, 1 Koch, Administrative Law and Practice § 6.7 [1985]. Similarly, mere familiarity with the facts of a pending proceeding or taking a public position on a policy issue related to the proceeding have been held insufficient to require disqualification (Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Educ. Assn., 426 U.S. 482, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 49 L.Ed.2d 1).
On the other hand, disqualification may be required for prejudgment of specific facts at issue in an adjudicatory proceeding (Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Federal Trade Commn., 467 F.2d 67, 80 [10th Cir.]; Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools v. Federal Trade Commn., 425 F.2d 583, 591 [D.C.Cir.]. It has been noted, moreover, that public statements that indicate prejudgment are especially problematic. While conscientious officials are presumably able to put aside privately held prejudgments, public statements touching on the facts of a proceeding create special problems. Such statements "may have the effect of entrenching [the official] in a position which he has publicly stated, making it difficult, if not impossible, for him to reach a different conclusion in the event he deems it necessary to do so after consideration of the record." (Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools v. Federal Trade Commn., supra, at 590.)
Thus, where, as in this case, an administrative official has made public comments concerning a specific dispute that is to come before him in his adjudicatory capacity, he will be disqualified on the ground of prejudgment if " 'a disinterested observer may conclude that [he] has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular case in advance of hearing it.' " (Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools v. Federal Trade Commn., supra, at 591 [quoting Gilligan, Will & Co. v. Securities & Exch. Commn., 267 F.2d 461, 469 (2d Cir.) ]; see, Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Federal Trade Commn., supra, at 80; Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commn., 336 F.2d 754, 760 [D.C.Cir.].)
Under this standard, Chairman Duffy was disqualified from participating in the SLA proceeding against petitioner. During his testimony before the Senate committee overseeing SLA operations, the committee chairman brought up the issue of underage drinking, introducing it as follows:
After noting that charges were pending before the SLA on the matter, the Chairman responded:
Viewed as a whole, this testimony could only be regarded by a disinterested observer as evidencing Chairman Duffy's belief that petitioner had in fact violated the law regarding the sale of alcohol to minors and his commitment to establishing that fact in the SLA...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In the Matter of The Application of Jaime Gongora v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ.
...she prejudged the outcome of the hearing, exhibiting bias that prejudiced petitioner's rights, 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 156, 161–62 (1990); Artists & Craftsmen Bldrs. v. Schapiro, 232 A.D.2d 265, 266, 648 N.Y.S.2d 550 (1st Dep't 1996), and violating due......
-
Prince v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
...of the hearing exhibited by the transcript further prejudiced petitioner's rights, 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 158, 161–62, 551 N.Y.S.2d 461, 550 N.E.2d 910 (1990); Artists & Craftsmen Bldrs. v. Schapiro, 232 A.D.2d 265, 266, 648 N.Y.S.2d 550 (1st Dep't 19......
-
Weber v. State Univ. of N.Y.
...fully applicable to adjudicatory proceedings before administrative agencies" (Matter of 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 158, 161, 551 N.Y.S.2d 461, 550 N.E.2d 910 [1990] [citations omitted] ). To that end, the code specifically guarantees a student accused of ......
-
Locurto v. Safir
...of administrative adjudications. See N.Y. A.P.A. Law § 303 (McKinney 1995) (presiding officers); 1616 Second Ave. Rest., Inc. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 158, 161 (1990) (due process); 12 Rules of the City of New York § 1-07(g) (1998) (OATH adjudicators). In defendants' view, ......