Last month, East Village resident Robert Halpern sued the State Liquor Authority (SLA) over a loophole in the 1999 law that allows bottomless brunches (drunk brunch, drunch, etc).
As the Post reports, the SLA has responded to the the Manhattan Supreme Court suit. They don't think much of it, and asked the court to dismiss.
“Halpern’s motivation behind alleging these complaints is his self-interest against increased noise and crowds in his community,” the SLA says in court papers.
“Halpern substitutes his own personal judgement for that of the Authority. … Halpern’s remedy, simply put, cannot be found within the walls of this Courthouse.”
Here's how The Real Deal first reported on the lawsuit last month:
“There are too may people running around drinking all the time,” Halpern told The Real Deal. “It’s become more and more of a drinking culture here.”
Halpern’s argument is that bottomless brunches are prohibited by a provision against selling unlimited alcohol for a set time and a set price. The Liquor Authority’s legal counsel has previously taken the position that “brunch specials” are considered special events and exempted from the provision. The suit makes the case that weekly bottomless brunches should not be exempt.
I asked Halpern, a lawyer and longtime resident of the East Village, what the next steps are with the suit.
"Next step in this case is for me to reply to motion to dismiss, and the papers get submitted on Dec. 6," he said in an email. "A motion to dismiss is a commonplace tactic. I don't think there's much merit to the motion, especially considering I am not asking for money, but for a ruling that the Liquor Authority is wrong.
"A judge could rule that the bottomless brunches are illegal under the statute, and the Authority could still decide not to to anything about them, though they are obligated to investigate complaints," Halpern said.
“Halpern’s motivation behind alleging these complaints is his self-interest against increased noise and crowds in his community,” the SLA says in court papers.
ReplyDeleteWell, hell, yes - and it's in the self-interest of every non-drunk in this neighborhood to complain that the SLA doesn't give a shit about the increased noise and crowds in OUR community.
I hope Halpern keeps going and at the very least annoys the crap out of the SLA, b/c IMO the SLA exists for its own good and not anyone else's. Or perhaps the members of the SLA board, who think drinking is sooooo good, should be required to live here on Friday and Saturday nights every single weekend and "enjoy" what we are all subjected to.
"Halpern substitutes his own personal judgement for that of the Authority" - wow, you mean someone who actually lives here and experiences the insanity for himself on a nightly basis isn't as qualified as a bunch of clueless upstaters who go home and sleep peacefully at night in quiet surroundings, never having to see, hear, or be impacted by the carnage their non-stop allowing of more, still more, and "Oh my God are you kidding me?" liquor licenses engenders? Whoda thunk it?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if those tools had to endure one weekend of what Mr. Halpern - and indeed, far too many of us - are forced to put up with, they would be shutting places down faster than one could say "Santacon". Maybe we should send up a flotilla of fully-stocked party buses crammed with screaming frat brohos to their neck of the woods a couple of times just to give them a taste of their own medicine.
“Halpern’s motivation behind alleging these complaints is his self-interest against increased noise and crowds in his community,”
ReplyDeleteWow, this is the defense's idea of a reason for dismissal? Morons. Is the only conclusion you can draw. Self interest? Who else's interest would Mr. Halpern be motivated by? Did they write this shit up by committee? They should be held in contempt for even attempting such a sorry half-assed appeal. They might as well have said "Your honor, we simply don't like this suit, please throw it out, it is going to be a hassle for us and it makes us look bad."
I'm not clear on if the court can rule that bottomless brunches are illegal but the SLA's own law states that the sales of alcohol should be 'incidental' to that of food. Similarly, a full liquor license and potato chips is not a meal.
ReplyDeleteI wish Halpern luck, but fear even a successful verdict and prohibiting bottomless beverage offerings won't put a dent in the problem*. The boozy brunch restaurants will in turn sell mimosa's for $2 or carafe's for cheap.
ReplyDelete*groups of oblivious to their surroundings people storming the neighborhood for 12p binge drinking and eggs.
The SLA has just proven that it is a joke. Any decent Jude would throw the SLAs charter back in their face. Controlling increased noise and crowds is at the very heart of their mission statement: the SLA was created “for the protection, health, welfare and safety of the people of the State." It’s why they were created in the first place! Based on their nonsensical response alone, Halpern automatically wins round 1.
ReplyDeleteHere’s what the SLA says their mission is, on their own website. Maybe their lawyers should read it:
“Chapter 478 of the Laws of 1934, known as the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, created the State Liquor Authority and the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The Legislature enacted this measure "for the protection, health, welfare and safety of the people of the State."
The New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) and its agency arm, the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), were established under New York State Law in 1934 to "regulate and control the manufacture and distribution within the state of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of fostering and promoting temperance in their consumption and respect for and obedience to law; for the primary purpose of promoting health, welfare and safety of the people of the state...’
By this definition alone, bottomles brunches should be banned. Bottomless brunches create an unhealthy and unsafe environment for everyone, especially for those consuming those beverages. The ones benefitting from this debauchery are the restaurants, liquor distributors, landlords and the city and state tax coffers, to the detriment of the general public. Case Closed.
If someone acts in criminal fashion after getting plastered, call the cops, otherwise seems like a waste of energy to try to block small businesses from making a buck...
ReplyDeleteThat's right, I am acting in my self-interest, and hopefully for the integrity of the neighborhood. You only get what you fight for. The SLA is also acting in its self interest, but they are supposed to be implementing the policy of the legislature, not their own policy, which is by all appearances, "eat, drink and be merry." - RH
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable, the SLA is completely useless. Why do they exist at all if not to remedy problems like this?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the SLA.,burp...vomit....
ReplyDelete" a waste of energy to try to block small businesses from making a buck... " the same could be said of a drug dealer's
ReplyDelete"small business"
Mr. Halpern, you are reading this thread, so, a question - would it be helpful to have others sign on to the lawsuit with you, so you are not the only litigant, thereby diffusing the SLA's argument that you are the sole complainant and it's all about you? If so, I would be happy to volunteer, and I bet any number of others on this site would as well. Let us know!
ReplyDeleteYou just wait until the Day Mayor hears about this! Oh ...
ReplyDeleteThis is the Establishment at work. They can't let him succeed. They throw road block after road block hoping to wear him down. It's like the NRA fighting any attempt to limit guns. The SLA cannot allow anybody for any reason to limit the sale of alcohol. It would be prologue to further limits. FIGHT ON, BROTHER!
ReplyDeleteThank you for doing this. This drunk brunch bullshit has gotten wildly out of control. It's anything but subtle.
ReplyDeleteMr. Halpern, we are all appreciative of your efforts, and as has already been said above, let us know if having more plaintiffs would help.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyer, but it sure reads to me as if the SLA is in violation of their stated reason for existence; they sure as hell aren't promoting "temperance" in any manner I could recognize.
Yes, a class action would have this suit proceed and hopefully end to the boozy brunch and SLA shilling out liquor licenses to the "restaurants".
ReplyDeleteThank you all for the comments and offers. I don't need any additional plaintiffs at this time but I might need some down the line. You can contact me at robertnhalpern.com.
ReplyDeleteRobert's "self-interest"? Which is? He wants more peace and quiet? Good for him. You go Rob!
ReplyDeleteCan the SLA smooch boozebrunch ass some more?
He lives in the neighborhood he has every right to some quiet in his home and not to deal with drunks every weekend starting at lunch. We get enough of that at night and the early AM from the bars in the East and West Village.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like someone should just move out of the city to nice quiet neighborhood upstate. Regulating boozy brunch will have little effect on a neighborhood central to NYU that is renowned for it's bars and nightlife. The implications of that should not come as a surprise to you every weekend. If you signed up to live in a city of 8 million people and reach the point where you can no longer handle the 'noise' that comes with it, then the solution is far more simple. . Move out!
ReplyDeleteOtherwise try going to the park or take refuge in any of the numerous quiet spaces available in the city. Perhaps invest in a nice pair of noise cancelling headphones.. Nope! Lets tie up the courts and waste the city's time and money in a feeble attempt to mitigate the binge drinking youth by placing more restrictions on the neighborhood restaurants trying desperately to stay in business. That way Mr. Halpern can have some peace and quiet for god's sake!
And there you have the, 'if you don't like _____, then move to _____.' Congrats.
ReplyDelete