People v. Gar Bob Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1966 |
| Citation | 49 Misc.2d 88,266 N.Y.S.2d 771 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. GAR BOB CORP and Gary Trentine, Defendants. |
| Court | New York District Court |
Michael D'Auria, Hicksville, for defendants, Ronald J. De Vito, Brooklyn, of counsel.
William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Robert Rivers, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.
Defendants, a corporation, and its president, are charged in two informations with the violation of Section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. At the opening of the trial both defendants moved to dismiss the charges on the District Attorney's opening address to the jury.
The facts--conceded for the purposes of this motion--are as follows: A 17 year old girl was served alcoholic beverages in a bar or tavern operated by the licensee corporate defendant. The defendant, its president, was observed by the complaint police officer walking about in the premises during the same period of time that the young lady was on the premises. However, he did not serve, mix, or otherwise directly or immediately participate in serving the beverage. On entering the premises the girl was required to and did exhibit documentary evidence showing that she was over the age of 18 years. However, the document had been altered to falsify her age.
This motion brings up the hard question of what is required of a tavern operator in regard to avoiding the sale or service of alcoholic beverages to minors.
Research has failed to reveal any authority mitigating or abrogating the rule established in People v. Werner, 174 N.Y. 132, 66 N.E. 667, namely, that the service or sale of an alcoholic beverage to a minor is malum prohibitum, and is not to be excused by ignorance or mistake of facts. In short, the one who immediately participates in the act does so at his peril. The harshness of the rule in such cases is justified by the enormity of the public hazard involved. (People v. Kibler, 106 N.Y. 321, 12 N.E. 795) The rule has been consistently applied in the Appellate Division notwithstanding the learned and vigorous dissent of FRANK J., in People v. Davin, 1 A.D.2d 811, 148 N.Y.S.2d 903 (First Department).
The defendants in the case at bar did not participate directly or indirectly in the actual immediate, service to the minor.
A distinction has been made between the case of the person immediately involved in the commission of the act and those more remotely concerned, whether by way of the doctrine of respondeat superior or supervisory responsibility. In People v. Griesebacker, 6 A.D.2d 679, 680, 173 N.Y.S.2d 934, 935, the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patton v. Carnrike
...121 N.E.2d 614 (1954). 20 Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan, 10 A.D.2d 987, 202 N.Y.S.2d 807 (2d Dep't 1960); People v. Gar-Bob Corp., 49 Misc.2d 88, 266 N.Y.S.2d 771 (S.Ct. 1966). 21 N.Y.Pen. § 22 See Mitchell v. The Shoals, Inc., supra note 18; Moyer v. Lo-Jim Cafe, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 523, 240 N......
-
Santoro v. Di Marco
...contest. At the time the plaintiff was 17 years of age, making it Malum prohibitum to serve alcohol to him. See People v. Gar Bob Corp., 49 Misc.2d 88, 266 N.Y.S.2d 771; People v. Danchak, 24 A.D.2d 685, 261 N.Y.S.2d 722; Ross's Dairies, Ltd. v. Rohan, 10 A.D.2d 987, 202 N.Y.S.2d 807, rearg......
-
Vallentine v. Azar
...v. Fisher, 217 N.E.2d 847 (Ind.1966) (recovery by third party); Davis v. Shiappacossee, 155 So.2d 365 (Fla.1963); People v. Gar Bob, 49 Misc.2d 88, 266 N.Y.S.2d 771 (1966). Citing City of Glendale v. White, 67 Ariz. 231, 194 P.2d 435 (1948); and, White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712......
-
Powers v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 1
...to an underage person requires no such cognizance (Penal Law § 260.20[4]; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65[1]; People v. Gar Bob Corp., 49 Misc.2d 88, 266 N.Y.S.2d 771). Moreover, imposition of Dram Shop Act liability upon the alleged sale to an underage person could produce unprecedente......