Published on:

Penal Law § 130.50

A Kings Prostitution Lawyer said that, this is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority, which suspended petitioner’s restaurant liquor license for a period of thirty days. By order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 31, 1965, made pursuant to statute (CPLR 7804, subd. [g]), the proceeding has been transferred to this court for disposition.

A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, in another case, there is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 21, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree (four counts), sodomy in the first degree (seven counts), promoting prostitution in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in annulling the New York State Liquor Authorities determination, which suspended petitioner’s restaurant liquor license for a period of thirty days.

In our opinion, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the determination that petitioner suffered or permitted the licensed premises to become disorderly on November 11, 1964. ‘Suffering premises to become disorderly means something more than a mere happening on one occasion. A finding that the management knowingly allowed such things to occur and to continue would have to be bottomed upon a showing either of more than a single event or the showing of a demonstrated attitude toward that happening which indicated acquiescence’. We have no showing in the instant case of more than a single event. Nor, in our opinion, is there substantial evidence of a demonstrated attitude toward the solicitation of the officer so as to indicate petitioner’s acquiescence. There was no testimony that the bartender overheard the solicitation. The bartender testified that when the officer joined the woman at the bar he thought they knew each other. A fellow officer who had entered the premises with the solicited officer testified to the same impression. There was testimony that when the woman and the officer were leaving the premises the woman told the bartender to ‘keep my seat warm, I won’t be long.’ There was no testimony, however, that the bartender acknowledged this farewell; and, even if he did, we find it no more indicative of knowledge of the solicitation than where a bartender, in similar circumstances, waved good-bye and told the parties to “have a good time”. Burglary was not involved.

There was testimony that the woman told the officer that she came to the premises often, but there was no testimony that she admitted soliciting other persons there or that the bartender or anyone else connected with petitioner permitted her to do so. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the officers went to the premises because there had been complaints of prostitution activity or because they suspected it. There is nothing in the record to indicate that, in the twenty years the tavern has been operating, or in the eight years petitioner had been there, any other incident of patronizing prostitution was uncovered or suspected. A license to engage in the liquor business, ‘even though frequently referred to as a privilege and not a right should be subject to revocation or suspension only upon competent proof showing a clear violation of the applicable regulatory provision’. There was no such proof here.

The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at the trial with regard to one of the two complainants failed to establish the element of forcible compulsion required to convict him of the charges of rape in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 130.35) and sodomy in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 130.50) applicable to that complainant. We do not agree. Considering all of the surrounding circumstances, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it was sufficient in quality and quantity for the jury to have reasonably found that the actions of the defendant and his accomplices constituted “a threat, express or implied, that place in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury”.

Accordingly, the court held that the determination is annulled on the law, with costs to petitioner.

If you are involved in a Prostitution case, seek the help of a Kings Prostitution Attorney and Kings Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. Call us now.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information