HomeMy Public PortalAboutr 06:157
)R£130[utiLìlt of the ;ïß LìrDUITh Lìf QIarterd, N. :IJ.
~ ) ~ ~ \ C
.1-06-1 C) 7 Dale or" Auoption May 17,
2006
I
No
"RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE FOR
THE 2005-2006 LICENSE TERi'YI"
\VHEREAS, pursuant to an Act entitled, "An Act Concerning Alcoholic Beverages", as
amended and also by certain rules and regulations adopted by the Governing Body of the
Borough of Carteret, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, an application has been
made by the undersigned in due and proper [ann and have paid the necessary fees
therefore; and
WI-lEREAS, the application has been reviewed and no objections have been made for
the renewal of said licenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mayor and
Council of the Borough Carteret, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that a
Plenary Retail Consumption License is granted and issued to the establishment listed
below:
LICENSE # 1Z01-33-061-008 Robe & Gravel Eoterprises, LLC tla Charlie's Aogels
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that pursuant to the order of the Department of Law
and Public Safety Division of A.B.C. the Municipal CJerk be and is hereby authotized
and directed to extend an Alcoholic Beverage License for the 2005-2006 license tenn to
the applicant listed ~bove, in accordance with the application heretofore made and
approveù; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two (2) certified copies of this Resolution be
forwarded, with original applications and proper fees, to the State of New Jersey,
Division of Akoholic Beverage Control, Licensing Bureau, CN 087, Trenton, New
Jersey 08625-0087.
Adopted thIS It' day of May, 2006
and certified as a true copy of the
original on May 18, 2006.
KATHLEEN M. BARNEY, RMCICMC
Municipal Clerk
COUNCILMAN YES NO NY A.B. COUNCILMAN YES NO NY A.B.
BELLINO I NAPLE<
DIAZ RTOS
.UITM ST'PARZ
X . Indic~l~ Vot~ AB· Absent NV - No! Votir1g XOR· ImJicates Votc to Overrule Velo
~o Action rp
ß.aftat a meeting of lh¡;: MlInicip¡¡¡ Council M:;!¡}}¡~ I
, I
,
,
RECORD OF COUNCIL VOTE
JRK
0-
"og/21/2005 09: 15
17327253308
ìax:\)U~ojjblJ/ö
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
~ep ¿u ¿uu~ lo:~1
PAGE Og/I0
P. U I
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUlJUC SAFEIT
JJIVISWN OF 4COHOLlC, BEVERAGE CONTROL
140 EClS/ Fron! Street
P.O. Box 087
Trelt/olt, New Jersey 08625.0081
!.ttp://www.nj.govflps/abc
\",q\~~
«~
"-'.,~'
,,,.:..~\
.,,~),
::-
','j
~-~"'
""
FAX COVER SHEE~~/
I··
.')1
. ,
TO:
Robert C. Williarn~, Esq.
Glenn C. Slavin, E;sq.
-'-'>'.
DATE:
September 20, 2005
FAX NUMBER:
(973) 736-1712
(732) 726-3308
F:ROM: J05" Rodriguez, DAG
SUBJECT: ROBE & GAVEL ENTERPRlSES, TiA CHARUES ANGELS
NUMBER OF PAGES (including covet sheet): 9
**..******~**~~~***~~******~***~$~~***¥***.*.****....*****~~~**********.~*
If you do not rec.ive all pages', please call back immediately.
Send.r: Tracey .
Phone: (609) 984-1913 Fa;'!:
**~~**.***...**********%~~************~~$~*******~~***********...**.******.~**
MESSAGE
,..* t *iII ,.. '* 11::1.* ~'" ~..~ ..s"'''''~'''~ ** lit' 'I: ...... '" "'".. "'....,... . .... "'.." '''''''4''''' "1'11:' .*".1,0" "',,,...., ,,"...'" .."'''''.,. ~..'" '" "'''' '" ..."'..."'.. ........... ..~...III
CONFIDBNTIAUIT NOTJCE
The itlfotmaúQQ c.on.u.iIæd in dti, bu:::rlrnilc b'M~mi~~iOfl frOm lhe: DIViSion of All:oh(JIit DC'Vq~c ContrQl may be. p.rivilegt.d ~d eot!.Eidenti:11
and is intended fa( the ~o1t IJse of the ~oru Q[ I!:Ðtitid nnroro QtI, tms f:r:lont.mitt.'1l cQ\'tlr ~hef t 1f you ar~ nøt IU\ intet'lded 1'I!cipieat of 1hÜ
tiansmisrilJÐ. the d:I~m.Ît\$l.rioo, dUtrib~tÎca., cop,ying or Ll!lS of thE infarroatlon It GcnbÌ.nt B ~tri.ct1y ~(ohl.b¡too, IfyClu havc ~~cl'\l'ed dW:
tranmûMiw incmr. 'Plaso call the sentkt jJnml:dh,~1y"tJ:J IIJIMge fur the retmn of1hj~ inform:lt;Ì,oJ\.
**.*~."'. '" .."',. ...... a..~ .II" ""I"" ill". '" ...;t!JtI!' '" ."'."'i!o:"''''''',....... "'..... ... ." '\II~'''.'''.. "',.,,. to "..... "" .II............. "."',..,. **'*." ."':11 t:".,..t... .1It" "'............ ...... >t
'09/21/2005 09: 15
17327253308
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
PAGE 10/10
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
Attorneys at Law
234 Main Street
Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095
k:e\'in H. Monie
Glenn C. Slavin""
1>0""'" C. Koval
.Joseph Antol\~kalds"'·
Tel: (732)726-3307
Fa" (732)726-3308
* AI~('I adl'l1iltcd 10 DC BiIr
A OrCnurt~d
. CPA. LLM· T¡IX<\tit1"
Facsimile Transmittal
Date:
C¡/:20/0S-
13d.- - 5'1/- tp7f~
To: /l1AyD7C RPt~>ÞV I þørt/J'ry ~G:r;v
O'H4t£LI ¡;; \5 ~6JeL-5
/\ß ¡; ~ i (")'--/'~' c.:
Message: t" L-- .L./" I=-t:' '-' IV",- <-J
Re:
Send to Fax #:
Of I /iJ t~
Sent By: 6; G--5
Number of pages (including this COVER SHEET): /6
IF THIS TRANSMITTAL Is ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMPLETE, PLE,\SE NOTIFY Us IMMEDIATELY AT
(732) 726-3307.
CONFIDENTIAI_.ITY WARNING
Th~ ductll"cIlIS accò!Hpcmyil1g [his fc (:,,'simfJe transmis.Yion (.'m71ai,l I(!ga'~r flrivÎ/C!g(!d (lrld COl~(ìdent¡(l1 Ì/!farm"tì0/1
from ,he laH'./irl12 n/SJá1:ifl ([lid Morse, LLC, \I'hiçh is illtended all~"f(}"JI (.' use of/he indil'iclcwl or "11firy I1WllC!d 011
thi,.... rral1YlllisSÎn/ shcel. r(roll arc nor rhe ¡",el7ded retipiel1r, .1'011 an! hereby 11Ot{(ìed rhal (111." di.'Ìc!OSlI/"(!, COpY'''lg,
di.ífriblfrfQf! or rhe raking of an,1' (/cri011 il1 l'elia!1C'(, IIP0) the ('(}I/fenrs ().f fhi.'Ì .fr.//'..:simile "'lIlfsmissio/J is ...rl'icr~l'
p/'Ohibi1ed. (/11d ,llC1r !he dOClfllH!/HS .~11O!lld h~ re1ll1'}1(Jd to this /i,.m jmmediate/.\'. 111 tlliJ reg{ rd, (rHJU have n:ceil-'ed
rhi5.f'an-imile (I'( smissio/1 /11 crmr, please /1at!fl' lIS h,r telephone imn1ediafC~l' so rhar \L'e cu" armngefar the I'r.tum
rlthe origi1lal dO('l/IIICllfS fa w· ar /70 ens! to ."01/.
~ r- (9)>v'( ~»A~W>O
Øg/2I/2005 Og:15
17327253308
Fa" 6098336076
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
Sep 20 2005 15:57
PAGE 01/10
p, u¿
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMEt;'T or LA W'AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OJ!' ALCOHOLIÇ BEVE:RAGECONTROL
ROBE AND GAVEL ENTERPRISES,
11..C Va CHARLIE'S ANGELS,
Appellant,
y,
GOVERNING BODY OF TIlE CITY OF
CARTERET,
Respondent.
DC. NO. 1201-33-061-006
APPEA1..S NO. 7087 and 7089
)
)
)
) ORDER STATING SUSPENSION,
), EXTENDING UCENSE TERM
) : AND IMPOSING SPECIAL CONDillONS
) ON THE UCENSE
)
)
)
)
)
)
Robert C. Williams, Esq., Attorney for AppclJant"
Glenn C. Slavin, Esq., Attorney for Respondent
(Slavin & Mo~c, 11..C, attorneys)
BYTHEDIRECrOR:
This matter comes beforc roe 00. two app*ation5 for stays pending appeal. These
appliçatiorts arise ttom a disciplinary decision revoking Ücense No. 1201-33-061-006 a¡¡d from
a subsequent decision by the munkipality denying renewal of the same license. While the denial
of ren<:wal has a broader predicate than the disciplinary matter, the severity of that penalty is
sllbstantially affected by the s"l11C history, The appeals were filed on June 8 and June 20, 2005,
~9(21/2005 09:15
17327253308
rax:bu~bJJbU/~
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
öep LU LUU~ ~:~I
PAGE 02/10
~. UJ
{espec!.Ìvely.
By Qrde{ dated June 23, 2005, r stayed the )ìcense revoeation and e¡¡tended the license for
the 2005-2006 license term, but imposed an ;ndefiOite suspension. I barred the license from
active use pending further hearing on the stay applications and subsequent Order. The hearing on
the stay applications occurred au August 4 and August 10, 2005. The parties we:re both
vigorousJy:represented and presented nut1:Jßrous witnesses and documentary evidence.
N.JAC. 13:2-17.8 provides that the fiJingof an appeal from a municipal disciplinary
action sball act as a. stay of the suspension action appealed, unless the Director shill otherwise
order. To support .. denial, there must be an "oveIjiding public interest" which justifies ~he
ìmmc:diate closure of the licensed premises. SaJvatore Avena v. Atlantic City ABC Boar!!, ABC
Bulletin 2462, Item 4, p. 19. Conversely, however, no such p(esumption of a stay exislB from a
depjal of :renewaJ. N.1.S.A. 33: 1-22. However on~ looks at the stay issue, given the two appeals,
the welJ..<:stablished principles :regarding an application for a stay apply.
A stay is not a roatter of right YaJrus v. United States, 321 lId- 414, 441, 64 S.Ct. 660,
88 L. Ed. 834 (1944). Rather, a stay is the e»ception and not the rule. GTE Cor:¡¡. v. Wíl1iams.
731 f.2d 676, 678 (lOrh Cir. 1984). As a result, the parties seeking such relief must clearly
. carry the burden of p<;J:Suasion on all of the prerequisites. United States v. Lambert. 695 f·2d
536,539 (11Ù\ Cir. 1983). The test for granting a:stay in ad¡¡¡j¡Ùstrative actions is well-settled.
In order to justify such relief, rhe Petitioner must qeroonstrate the existence of all of tile
following four separate conditions:
1. The petitioner roust show it wìll bE; ~par<Jbly injured if the stay is not granled.
2. The petitioner must demonstra.te tl1at the legal claim it is advancing is settled.
2,
Ð9/21/2005 09:15
17327253308
Id....OU;¡OùJOu/O
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
,)~p l.U LUU:J 13: JO
PAGE 03/10
I. Vr.¡
3. The petition~ must show a rea$on~bJe probability of ultimate Succe$S on the
merits.
4. Th~ p~titioner mwt demonstrate th6 probability of ham¡ to oth~r persons will not
be greater than the harm to the petition~r if the stay is not granted.
QQwe v. DeCí9i~, 90:I:U. 126, 132-134 (1982); ~nin~ Bd. of Adiustment of SParta v. Serviç~s
Electric Cabl. Television ofN.J.. Inc., 198 N.J. Super. 370, 379 (App. Div. 1985).
A primu-y goal of TítIe 33 is to insure the strict regulation of alcobolic beverages to
protect tbe health, safety and we fate of the pMp1e of the State. NJ.SA 33:1-3,111.(1).
MorMVer, N,J.S.A. 33:1-3.1b(5) identifies a priuie goal of preyeuti¡;¡g "tile infùtration of the
alcoholic beverage indtL5try by persons with known crimina.! records, habit$ or associations."
With tbis public policy in mind, we also recognize the isstlanœ, renewal and tramfer of liquor
licenses rests in the sound discretion of the i.suing authority!U)d its action will not be disturbed
in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Paul Y. Brass Rail Uc¡uors, 31 RI· Sllpc.r. 211
(App. Diy. 1954).
There c!u) be no doubt that the operation of a licensed establishment that adversely affects
the quality of life in the community may result in the imposition of peualties, special conditions
or non-renewal. It is well-established that a licensee's responsibility inc111des taking such
rea50nabJe action as is necessary to prevent the operation of licensed premises from adversely
impacting the suuounding community. If prove~, this inc]udes the conduct cO!l1plained of in the
instant application and appeal.
The issue al this stage of the appeal is whether then: is an overriding public interest to
such a degre<: that imroediate cessation of rhe lic.insec's business is I'e< uircd pending a full
3
Ø9/21/2BB5 B9:15
173272533BB
rä;:O;;OU::IOJJDUJO
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
;)ep ¿u ¿UU::I ¡:¡: :11:1
PAGE B4/I B
1"". U~
hearing on the licensee's appeal. In arriving at a d;,te¡;¡nination, within the framework of the
legal principles addressing stays on appeal, I r~~ognize, on one side, the wcight accorded a
municipal decision, the statutory framework that qemands licensees recogni7"" quality of life
obliga.tions and tl1e pattexn of lxIhaviOl: establisheq at the hearing OD the stay. In the conte.xt of
tl1~ ~pi50des of violence alleged, I must also consider risks pruented to th~ local community as
woll ~ law enforcement authorities.
On the othcr side of the coin, I must recogirize the fact that the license has re:cog11ized th~
need to re¡mÎn closed, now nc:arly 90 days, until tþere is a resolution of what the public intere~t
demands. I also must recognize that, while ¡¡Qt otitaining the desir"d results, tl1e licensee hM
substantially cooperated with the municipality when requested. Finally, th~ pot~ntial demise of
one's business is a considerable measure of ineparable injury.
The reçord created at tl1e hearing involved. two days of testimony and 24 e;iliibits. Thc
arguments for botl1 positiollil were effectively presented. As I noted earlier, the al1"gations, if
proven, could support th" municipal decisions th~t arc booing appealed. "Vbile comprehensive,
the hearil1g on the stay was acknowledged by everyone not to be the merits hearing. 'That will
take place before the Office of Adxnú1Ìstrative Lay,..
'The testimony establishes that the licensed premises has been tl1e SCene of severaJ
episodes of fighting or violent behavior between 2002 and the present. Charges were filed in
August 2004 for five such incidents and settled by 111e licensee. In addition, there were twe more
recent violent incidents alleged. The first involvès what appears to be a gang-related Shooting
that did not result in injury on March 18,2005. The second was an alleged fight on June 25,
2005, in which a patron may have bo"n seriously injured. This second incident may also have
4
I d;o,'¡.JU~lJtJùUU/U
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
ù~~ lU ¿UU3 13;~~
PAGE 05/10
Ø9/21/2005 89:16
17327263308
r. Ur;1
involved an attempt by the ]jcensee to caver up the incident from police investigation. No
charges a.s to that incident have yet been filed.
The Deputy Police Ch.ief testified that conditions at the licensed premises required the
police department to allocate an inordinate amount of resources to the area of that premises. In
response to this and the previous assaults, the licensee entered into an ag¡:eement on
September 16, 2004 with the police department toroake certain phY"ic8.1 improvements and
improved lighting, increase security staff and insure compliance with local employee licensing
requirements. The Deputy Chief testified the agreþd upon items were done, but voiced conCErn)
that not enough cl,¡aJ,ogue followed.
The need for this work was predicated in a' September 6, 2004 memorandum that
~cribed in detail the conce;ros of the police. The memorandum expressed concern with the
pJ:Oble.nl of violence and dangerous behavior on FÌiday, Saturday and Sunday nights, especially
near and a.t closing time. The problem at the licensed premises was iliought to occur primarily a.s
a resllit of loitering in the parking lot by large cro";'d$. While security rewained at the entrances,
the police were primarily tasked with dispersing the crowd. However, these resources were
strained 10 meet this need, even requiring a.ssismnèe from sllUounding communities. The
;me¡notandwn even anticipated that, in the absence of efforts by the licensee, "[i]t is oruy a matte!
of time before we have an incident like the one at 'Club Krome in Sayreville, where a patrù1l was
shot. and killed leaving the club, by another person from the club. We do not know who is
corning to Charlie' $ Angels or what their backgrounds are."
ìVhile the requested changes were implemented, they were inadequate to prevent the
predicted shooting. The Deputy Chief testified that no one frow security even contacted the
5:
·09/21/2005 09: 15
17327253308
I o~.UU:;lO""'¡OU/O
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
J€P ¿u ¿UU:J I:J::J::;I
PAGE 05/10
~. u¡
police for followup. Any momenmm for improv~jncnt was dissipated. The testimony leaves me
with the sense that the licensee wade strong efforts to control the inside of the: premises, but was
less concerned with the outside. For example, on the nígb.( of the shooting, only two of the:
securiry personnel were in the ¡¡arJcing lot. Even t1i.ough the shooting ';'as at closing, there was
minilnal presence in th" parking lot at the time and there was no effan to put people there even
after the shooting. They did not even try to call the police at the time of the shooting.
The appearance that me focus of security was to protect the licensee and the premises
. .
rather than patrons and the co=umty is also eviqent in the circumstances suxrounding an
alleged June 25, 2005 inCident. In that incident, the town alleged a violent confrontation that
resulted in police calli and at least one injury to a )voman patron. It is alleged that the licensee
took numerous effort5 to cover up the incident rat1j.er than a5sisting in catching the culprits and
preventing ful:1J.1'e occun-ences. Whi.le the facts of (ha( incident, which he¡; not yet been charged,
are disputed and have not been the subject of a heãring, police testimony was disturbi!1g to me
about the attitude of the licensee. As a further example, the licensee also testified that he did not
believe he we¡; resporulible for the adjacent parking lot and the proble¡n.s that occurred there on
clo.ing every night. Obviously, problems created þy patrom exiting the prewlses and using the
ancillro:y pl!rJcing areas are, so directly related to ttie licensed premises, that they arc the licensee's
responsibility.
In the context of tJris record, I conclude that the public health, safety and welfare demands
some action beyond maintaining the status quo. H;owever, absent one final effort, in light of the
nearly 90-day period tJlat the licensee has been clo:sed, an indefinite suspension pending appeal
would be unfair_ I will impose a series of conditio:ns and allow the licensee to open pending
6'
Ø8/21/2005 08:15
17327253308
~aX: bU~bJJbUI~
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
~ep 20 2005 15'59
PAGE 07/10
P.DS
appeal. If the licensee does not comply with the cooditiolJs or there are further serious episodes
of v¡olence, then I wi11 impose an ind~fin\te suspeþsion pending appeal.
The conditions to be imposed are dir~ct~d at facilitating the licensee's control of his
premises and the adjac~nt =3. in order to eliminate the actual and potential violence that has
been identified in the record.
Accordingly, I will impose the following conditions:
1. Occupancy may not e¡¡ceed a tota1'o~ 120 people.
2. The licensee will maint¡¡jn the 12-camera security syst~m. including sign age that
was testified about at the he:uing.
3. "Last call" will be at 1:00 a.m. anq the premises will close at 1:30 a.m.
4. No patron uuder the age of 25 to be admitted.
5. The jcens~~ win hire a bond~d, professional security se.rviœ. The number <Jf
security personnel on ¡¡¡¡d about thê premises shall be consistent with a security
plan tha( is to be approved by the ~olice Chief, or his designee. A decision by tbe
Chief. or his designee, on the plan'must be made within 15 days of the date of
submission by the licensee and a d,onial must include reasonable law enforcement
reasons supporting such deu.i¡¡J,
~.. .
Accordingly, it on this ;;to day of September, 2005,
ORDERED that the licensee's request for' a .tay of Carteret'S revocation a¡¡d de¡1Ía! of
renewal of the license pending appeal is hereby ~anted; and it is further
ORDERED that the stay of suspension is 'gnmted. only subject to the satisfaction of the
five special conditions enumerated above, inclucJ.ing security plan approval which special
1
09/21/2005 99:15
17327253308
rax:bu~bjjbU{~
SLAVIN & MORSE, LLC
öep lU lUU; lb:DD
P. U9
conditions shall W<:e effect iromediately and !'emMn in effect until I otherwise order or tJús appeal
is concluded; and it ig fu.trber
ORDERED that either party may file a mo}-ion with mewith notice timely g;.ve.n to
opposing counsel, requesting a hesring on an eme:gency basis, for purposes of considering the
modification of the te= and conditions of the within sts.y Order.
y FISCHER
: DIRECTOR
JFI=
K
PAGE 08/10