Fun with the State Liquor Authority

Pull up a chair for a six-hour tour of policy rumination, license applications and more fun with the folks at SLA. This is what happened at the first gathering of the year on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2024.

For the full board agenda, go to the SLA site here.

Happy New Year!

Here is a full transcript:

• Date and Location: January 8th, 2025, conducted in New York City with video conferencing to Buffalo and Albany.
• Participants: Chair Lily Fan, Commissioners Edgar de Leon and John Meyer, General Counsel Shannon Kearney, Deputy Commissioner of Licensing, and Secretary Robert.
• Announcements:
  • Chair Lily Fan announced the return of Mark Fairing, a former acting general counsel and associate counsel, as a part-time staff member. He will work on special projects in Albany.
  • Upcoming meeting dates: January 30th, February 20th, and March 12th.
• Meeting Protocol: Attendees were reminded to silence cell phones and take calls outside. Items will be called in order from Buffalo, Albany, and then New York City. Representatives should identify themselves and their clients when approaching the podium.

1. Space Calculation Error: The total space in the building was overestimated by about 800 square feet. The correct total space is 3956 square feet, with 3096 square feet of retail space.
2. Opposition to New Liquor Store: Ralph Lorigo represents three store owners opposing the new liquor store application. He argues that the new store would negatively impact existing stores, which are already experiencing declining sales or stagnant profits.
3. Distance Discrepancies: There is a disagreement about the distances between the proposed store and existing stores. The board uses driving distance, while Lorigo’s measurements differ.
4. Letters of Opposition: Several elected officials have written letters opposing the new store, citing potential negative impacts on existing businesses.
5. Economic Impact: The opposition argues that the new store, being a “mega store,” would harm smaller stores in the area. They also mention that another large store opened recently, and a similar application was denied not long ago.
6. Bulletproof Stores: There was confusion about whether the existing stores are bulletproof. It was clarified that some stores are bulletproof, while others are not.
7. Sales Figures: There is a debate over the accuracy of sales figures provided. Some stores show slight increases, while others show declines. The board considers these figures in their decision-making process.
8. Precedent and Community Support: The board previously denied a similar application, and there is support from the village of Sloan for the new store. The board will consider these factors in their decision.

1. Sales Figures as a Barometer: The best measure of performance is comparing sales figures from the previous year to the current year and projecting future sales. This method isn’t perfect but provides a reasonable estimate.
2. Stagnant Sales: A representative from a liquor and convenience store mentioned that their sales have been stagnant despite efforts to improve, due to the opening of many new stores.
3. Decreasing Sales: Gregory Koran, owner of Right Price Liquor and Wines, reported a steady decrease in sales since 2021, despite efforts to diversify products and extend business hours. He emphasized the difficulty of competing with a new, much larger store.
4. Union Wine and Liquor: The owner of Union Wine and Liquor noted a 10% decrease in sales in December 2024 compared to December 2023, despite having a large store with a wide variety of products and services.
5. Applicant’s Rebuttal: Tracy Jong, representing the applicant, argued that the closest liquor store had increased sales in 2023 and 2024, even after a new mega store opened in 2022. She also pointed out that grocery stores and big box stores selling wine and beer do not significantly impact liquor stores.
6. Public Convenience and Advantage: The applicant’s store will offer a different shopping experience by not being a bulletproof store, allowing customers to explore products. The store will also offer a wider variety of products, including allocated and collectible items, catering to different demographics and price points.

1. Parking and Building Details: The applicant’s store has at least 40 parking spots and is located in a standalone building. The building was vacant and purchased two years ago for renovation.
2. Community Support: The applicant has received letters of support from local officials and community members, emphasizing the need for a liquor store in the area.
3. Ownership Clarification: There was confusion about the ownership of the building. It was clarified that the applicant and her husband own the building together, but the husband will not be involved in the liquor store business.
4. Public Convenience and Advantage: The applicant’s store will offer a different shopping experience by not being a bulletproof store, allowing customers to explore products. The store will also offer a wider variety of products, catering to different demographics and price points.
5. Board’s Decision: The board members voted to approve the application, citing the applicant’s experience, the store’s location and accessibility, and the support from local officials. They also emphasized the importance of keeping the business finances separate from the husband’s other business interests.
6. Future Improvements: The board acknowledged the need to improve the process of collecting and evaluating sales data to avoid lengthy discussions and ensure accurate decision-making.

1. Applicant’s Suitability: The applicant is well-suited for the liquor store business due to their deep roots in the community, ownership of the property, and extensive experience in the area.
2. Service Area: The store is located on Route 19, a thoroughfare for people traveling to Buffalo, Rochester, and nearby recreational areas. This location is expected to serve both the town and travelers.
3. Distance Between Stores: The distances between existing stores range from 7.6 to 14.1 miles. The applicant’s store is 0.4 miles from another proposed store.
4. Support for Both Stores: The applicant’s counsel stated that they do not oppose the approval of both stores if the agency decides to license them. They believe their clients are the better applicants but are open to both stores being approved.
5. Board’s Decision: The board members voted to approve both applications, citing the significant distance to the next nearest stores and the potential for both stores to serve the community and travelers. They emphasized the importance of non-bulletproof stores and the relatively small size of the new stores.

1. Financial Concerns: The applicant has provided updated financials showing a total of $55,461 in personal and corporate accounts. However, there are concerns that this amount is insufficient to start and operate a 5,400 square foot liquor store.
2. Experience and Employment: The applicant has experience working in a liquor store since 2021 and as a cashier at a grocery store. She plans to quit her current jobs to focus on the new store.
3. Husband’s Involvement: There are concerns that the applicant’s husband, who owns another liquor store, might be involved in running the new store or providing financial support. The applicant insists that her husband will not be involved and that she will manage the store independently.
4. Inventory and Setup Costs: The applicant plans to start with a smaller inventory and gradually grow the business. She estimates spending $10,000 on shelving, $5,000 on a computer system, and the remaining amount on initial inventory.
5. Board’s Concerns: The board members are skeptical about the feasibility of starting a large liquor store with the available funds and without external financial support. They are also concerned about potential violations if the applicant’s husband provides credit or other assistance.

1. Financial Concerns: The applicant plans to start the store with products displayed on the floor due to limited funds. This approach raised concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of the store setup.
2. Board’s Decision: Commissioner De Leon voted to deny the application, citing insufficient financial resources and concerns about the store’s setup. Commissioner Maya voted to approve, considering the location and support from local officials. The chair voted to deny, emphasizing the lack of financial independence from another liquor store and the need for public convenience and advantage.
3. Family-Owned Stores: Two brothers owning separate liquor stores were found to be exchanging products without proper licenses. The board expressed skepticism about the claim that this happened only once and imposed a $4,000 fine on each store.
4. Restaurant License Issues: A restaurant was found to be serving liquor despite only having a wine and beer license due to its proximity to a church. The board emphasized the importance of adhering to the class of service and addressing neighbor complaints about noise and disturbances.

1. Fine for Store Owners: The board imposed a $4,000 fine on two liquor stores owned by brothers for exchanging products without proper licenses. The board expressed skepticism about the claim that this happened only once and emphasized the importance of adhering to the law.
2. Hata Caribbean Restaurant and Lounge: The applicant submitted a new letter from the city and police reports showing no notable incidents since 2022. The board approved the application but emphasized the importance of adhering to the class of service, which only allows the sale of wine due to the 200-foot rule from a church.
3. Liquor Universe Corp: The applicant requested to move the store next to a beverage center owned by his wife. The board approved the move, noting the public convenience and advantage despite concerns about the applicant’s history of sales to minors.
4. Casa del Mojito Inc: The board countered a $1,000 fine with a $5,000 fine for a nighttime violation where the premise was open past the allowed hours. The board emphasized the importance of adhering to the approved hours and noted the pending application for later hours.
5. Isla Bonita NYC Corp: The applicant operates a small restaurant in Washington Heights and requested extended hours. The board reviewed the application, noting the restaurant’s small size and the applicant’s efforts to create a positive environment.
6. Kiss Me Bar: The applicant explained that police reports were mistakenly attributed to their restaurant and actually belonged to a neighboring establishment using the same address.

It seems there are several points of confusion and concern regarding the history and documentation for this establishment. Let’s break it down:
Incident History:
January 2023: The location was found operating as a bar with no food, hookah, DJ, and dancing, which was not allowed under the method of operation. This incident is claimed to be under a different temporary license, not the current applicant’s.
January 11, 2023: Alcohol was sold to an 18-year-old.
December 16, 2023: NYPD reported a grand larceny at the location, which the applicant claims is related to a neighboring establishment.
March 30, 2024: NYPD reported a fight inside the establishment, which the applicant has explained.
Documentation Issues:
The applicant has a lease agreement and a purchase agreement for the bar for $20,000, but both documents are unsigned.
The lease assignment is with the previous licensee, who was disapproved at this location.
Clarifications Needed:
The applicant needs to provide signed copies of the purchase agreement and lease assignment to ensure the legitimacy of the transfer.
The applicant should clarify any connections with the previous licensee and ensure that all operations are in compliance with the approved method of operation.