Booze News: Distilled in Room 215

A blog about the Baltimore City Liquor Board

What happened at the Liquor Board on January 8, 2015.

Written by Becky Witt

11:00 a.m. cases

I. Transfers and amendments:

Applicant Chandra Bishwokarma
Business Name Bishwokarma Group, LLC
Trading As Medfield Mini Mart
Address 4300 Falls Road
Type of License Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application to transfer ownership.
Hearing notes

Mr. Melvin Kodenski represented the applicant. Kodenski told the Board that his client was applying for a beer and wine license (not a beer, wine and liquor license), for use at his convenience store. The applicant has agreed in writing with the Medfield Community Association that he will refrain from selling individual cans of beer and 40s (40-ounce bottles of malt liquor). Kodenski said that the convenience store and its Class A license have been at the location for a while.

Commissioner Moore noted that the last inspection of the location was on December 19, 2013, and, at that time, it was operating. She asked Mr. Kodenski if the license was still in use through 2014, to his knowledge. Kodenski replied that the mini mart has been in continuous operation, but he was not sure whether the liquor license was being used, because he was only representing the buyer, not the seller of the license. (The seller of the license was not present at the hearing.) Moore asked, “what evidence is there that the license is still valid?” Kodenski told Moore to ask Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth if she had any information. Ms. Bailey-Hedgepeth told the Commissioners that the license was renewed on time in 2014, and that the renewal application was submitted on March 28. The renewal application stated that the license was in operation, but there has been no inspection since the end of 2013.

Chairman Ward stated that he would be creating a new regulation that will require licensees on both sides of transfers to be present at hearings. He asked his fellow Commissioners whether the lack of the selling licensee would be enough for them to deny the transfer. Moore replied that before there can be a transfer hearing, they must first know whether the license is valid. If the Board does not have any information about the validity of the license, she was not comfortable moving forward. She admitted that the license probably is being used, but paying for a renewal is not enough. She also said that there is no evidence that the applicant is not qualified to be a licensee, and it is helpful that the Medfield association is supportive of the transfer, but “it is of no moment if the license is not valid.”

Zoning R-7
Neighborhood Medfield
Area demographics 77% White, 12% Black, 5% Asian; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 18% households have children under age 18; median household income: $54,278
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office 4222 Elsa Terrace, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved, subject to the seller’s confirmation of her continuous use of the license.
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

As Commissioner Moore said during this hearing, the validity of the license should always be the first inquiry when an applicant seeks to transfer the license. The seller and buyer of the liquor license should have the joint burden of showing that the license is valid (has been in continuous use in the 180 days before the application was submitted). The seller of a liquor license is the only party with access to the receipts and other documents that would show that he or she has been actively selling alcohol. The commissioners promised to follow up and to require that the seller show this, but they told the audience that there would not be a followup hearing. The community was supportive of the transfer, but it is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that all licenses are transferred according to the law, regardless of community support or opposition.

Also, the fact that a licensee submitted a renewal application and fee on time is not compelling evidence that the license is in use.

Applicant Myoung Ouk Kim
Business Name Kimsink Enterprises, Inc.
Trading As 57 Liquors
Address 1300-02 Laurens Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes The case was not called.
Zoning B-3-2
Neighborhood Sandtown-Winchester
Area demographics 1% White, 96% Black, 0% Asian; 0% Hispanic ethnicity; 34% households have children under age 18; median household income: $23,974.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Clinton, MD
Attorney for licensee N/A
# in support N/A
Attorney for community N/A
# of protestants N/A
# of inspectors/police officers N/A
Result of hearing N/A
Vote tally N/A
Portions of state law cited in decision N/A
Other reasons given for decision N/A
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed The case was not called at all. A brief announcement for each postponed case that the hearing would be held on a future date would be helpful.
Applicants Christopher Bennett, Carrie McIntyre & Kathleen Williams
Business Name Interstate Management Company, LLC
Trading As Hyatt Place
Address 511 S. Central Avenue
Type of License Class “BHM” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application for a new Class “B” BWL hotel license under the provisions of Article 2B §6-201(d)(2) requiring a minimum of no less than 100 rooms, a dining room with facilities for preparing and serving meals for at least 125 persons at one seating and capital investment of $500,000; application also includes a request for live entertainment and outdoor table service
Hearing notes

Ms. Linda Carter represented the applicants and Hyatt Place. All three applicants were present at the hearing, along with the resident manager of the hotel. Carter told the Commissioners that the hotel had cost $26 million to build and furnish and contained 208 rooms. The largest event space can serve over 250 people inside the hotel. Alcohol will be available from noon to midnight at the hotel’s restaurant. There won’t be any mini-bars in the individual rooms, but patrons may be able to order alcohol through room service. All staff have undergone an intensive training program. She requested to withdraw the application for outdoor tables. She also told the Board that the hotel will never host its own live entertainment, but if someone reserves a banquet or conference room and wants to bring a band for a wedding or birthday party, the hotel would like to accommodate them.

Commissioner Moore asked for the capital investment breakdown, excluding costs for the building, since the Board cannot consider them for the purposes of qualifying under the statute. Ms. Carter responded that she didn’t have exact figures, but it would likely be in excess of $5 million. The televisions in the rooms alone cost more than $500,000.

Zoning B-2-3
Neighborhood Inner Harbor
Area demographics 80% White, 12% Black, 4% Asian. 3% Hispanic ethnicity. 11% households have children under age 18. Median household income: $78,578. 12% households live below poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Wilmington, DE
Attorney for licensee Ms. Linda Carter
# in support 4
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicants Randall Garutti, Jeffrey Uttz & Harvey Goldberg
Business Name Shake Shack Pratt Street Baltimore, LLC
Trading As Shake Shack
Address 400 E. Pratt Street
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application for a new Class “B” BWL Under provisions of Article 2B §6-201(d)(i), requiring $500,000 in capital investment in restaurant fixtures and facilities and a seating capacity exceeding 75 people; request for outdoor table service
Hearing notes

Ms. Leanne Schrecengost represented the two applicants. She proffered to the Commissioners that her clients were applying for a new restaurant license, for a “fine casual burger restaurant.” The business has spent $543,000 to date, the seating capacity is 124 inside, with an additional 20 seats outside, so she argued that they easily qualify for the new Class B license under the statute. Schrecengost stated that, as a chain, Shake Shack usually brings in only 3% of its revenue from alcohol sales. She submitted letters of support from Downtown Partnership and the Waterfront Partnership.

Commissioner Moore asked the applicants how they differ from McDonalds and Burger King and whether they would be considered “fast food.” Mr. Randy Garutti answered that Shake Shack is not fast food; they have always used a fine dining ethos and have brought chefs in from four-star restaurants. They use all natural ingredients and cook food to order. He said that they plan to work with local bakeries to provide mix-ins for frozen custard. He explained that Shake Shack has been called the “anti-chain chain.” Moore said that she asked because she had read in the Baltimore Business Journal that Shake Shack was fast food, and the law says that a license cannot be given to a fast food restaurant.

Commissioner Moore also asked about the pecuniary interest of each applicant in the business. On the application, none of the applicants stated that they had a financial interest in the LLC that would attach to the license. Mr. Randy Garutti said that he has an interest in the parent entity which is the 100% owner of the to-be-licensed subsidiary entity.

Zoning B-5-2
Neighborhood Inner Harbor
Area demographics 80% White, 12% Black, 4% Asian. 3% Hispanic ethnicity. 11% households have children under age 18. Median household income: $78,578. 12% households live below poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office 400 E Pratt St, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Ms. Leanne Schrecengost
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Commissioner Dana Moore referred to a section of the law (Article 2B section 6-201(d)(1)(viii)(4) states that “[a] license may not be issued for use in an establishment that is a fast food style restaurant.” The code does not define what it means by “fast food style restaurant.”

Applicants Charles Doering, John Doering & Eliza Doering
Business Name Penny Black Baltimore, Inc.
Trading As John Steven
Address 1800 Thames Street
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

This hearing was not called, but a quick announcement was made that it was postponed.

Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Fells Point
Area demographics 70% White, 8% Black, 5% Asian; 15% Hispanic ethnicity; 11% households have children under age 18; median household income: $69,105; 11% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office 1800 Thames St, Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee N/A
# in support N/A
Attorney for community N/A
# of protestants N/A
# of inspectors/police officers N/A
Result of hearing N/A
Vote tally N/A
Portions of state law cited in decision N/A
Other reasons given for decision N/A
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed The case was not called at all. A brief announcement for each postponed case that the hearing would be held on a future date would be helpful.
Applicants Syam Potluri, Rajeshwer Pingili & Joeph Libercci
Business Name VD & SR Pharmacy, LLC
Trading As Park Avenue Pharmacy
Address 1535 Park Avenue
Type of License Class “A” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application to transfer ownership
Hearing notes

Mr. Alfred Albrecht Jr. represented the applicants. He submitted letters of approval from the Mount Royal Improvement Association, the Bolton Square Homeowners Association, and some local business owners, who all were in support of the transfer.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the license was currently in operation. The current licensee, Joseph Libercci, testified that the license was in use and has been in consistent use for 32 years.

Zoning R-8
Neighborhood Bolton Hill
Area demographics 53% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 6% households have children under age 18; median household income: $36,751; 10% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Lutherville, MD
Attorney for licensee Alfred Albrecht
# in support ~5
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Applicant Samuel Curreri
Business Name Sammy’s Enoteca, LLC
Trading As Sammy’s Enoteca
Address 621-25 S. Broadway
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Application for a new Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor restaurant license under the provisions of Article 2B Section 6-201 (d) (vii) $500,000 in capital investment in restaurant fixtures and facilities and seating capacity for a minimum of 75 people
Hearing notes The hearing was postponed but not called.
Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Fells Point
Area demographics 53% White, 32% Black, 8% Asian, 3% 2 or more races; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 6% households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $38,331; 5.5 % households live below poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Towson, MD
Attorney for licensee N/A
# in support N/A
Attorney for community N/A
# of protestants N/A
# of inspectors/police officers N/A
Result of hearing N/A
Vote tally N/A
Portions of state law cited in decision N/A
Other reasons given for decision N/A
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed The case was not called at all. A brief announcement for each postponed case that the hearing would be held on a future date would be helpful.

II. Hardship Extensions:

Applicant William Buszinski, Scott Backketter & Maria Buszinski
Business Name BPM Restaurant Group, LLC
Trading As Mr. Rain’s Fun House
Address 800 Key Highway
Type of License Class “B” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing Request for a hardship extension under the provisions of Article 2B Section 10-504(d)
Hearing notes

Mr. Kodenski represented the two licensees; he told the Commissioners that his clients had owned the license on the third floor of the American Visionary Arts Museum. Their prior tenant stopped doing business on June 14, 2014. They requested a hardship extension on November 26, 2014 (165 days later). An applicant to transfer ownership of the license has recently filed an application with the Board, but, in case that application doesn’t go through, the licensees are requesting a hardship extension.

Zoning B-2-3
Neighborhood Federal Hill
Area demographics 90% White, 3% Black, 3% Asian; 3% Hispanic ethnicity; 15% households have children under age 18; median household income: $73,342; 8% households live below the poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; no.
Location of entity’s principal office Millersville, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Melvin Kodenski
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 0
Result of hearing Approved
Vote tally Unanimous
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Article 2B section 10-504(d)(4) requires that the Commissioners hold a hearing on each hardship extension request and approve it only “on a finding that undue hardship currently exists causing the closing or cessation of business operations.” The Board did not make any such finding during this hearing, and the licensee’s attorney presented no evidence of any hardship, undue or otherwise.

1:00 pm cases

III. Violations:

Licensees Joyce Yun Chong & Robert Curran
Business Name Max’s Charles Village, LLC
Trading As Maxie’s Pizza Bar & Grille
Address 3003 N. Charles Street
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation – October 24, 2014 – At approximately 11:30 PM Officer observed suspected underage patrons being served and consuming alcoholic beverages inside of the establishment. Officers began to conduct an investigation to determine if patrons were indeed underage. Establishment employee then began to tell suspected underage bar patrons to “hide in the restrooms” in order to avoid contact with Officers.

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Minors – October 24, 2014 – At approximately 11:30 PM Officer entered the establishment and observed an individual consuming alcohol in the form of a “Corona Extra” bottle of beer who was later identified as someone who was 18 years of age. This individual admitted to the Officer that he was allowed to purchase the bottle of beer from the establishment, after his identification – which indicated he was 18 years old – had been checked.

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Minors – November 20, 2014 – At approximately 9:47 PM the Baltimore Police Department conducted an underage alcohol investigation at the establishment. A police cadet, who was under the age of 21, entered the establishment and purchased a 12oz bottle of “Coors Light” for $4.00 from the bartender. At no time did the bartender ask for the age of the police cadet. Baltimore police were contacted and entered the establishment and informed the bartender that he had just served a minor.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – October 24, 2014 – At approximately 11:30 PM Officer entered the establishment and later identified an underage patron that was consuming alcohol. The patron informed the Officer that after he showed his identification to the assistant manager, which indicated that the patron was only 18 years old, he was given a blue wristband that indicated he was 21 years old and could purchase alcohol. He later told the Officer that he used the wristband and purchase alcohol.

Hearing notes

Mr. Frank Boozer represented the two licensees, Joyce Yun Chong and City Councilman Robert Curran, who were both present at the hearing. Thomas Akras, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Liquor Board informed the Commissioners that he and Mr. Boozer had come to an agreement that the licensees would agree to the police officers’ statement of facts and the violations of law in exchange for a six week suspension and an $8,000 fine ($3,000 for the October 24 noncooperation charge; $1,000 for the underage drinking charge on October 24; $1,000 for the underage drinking charge on November 20, and $3,000 for the 4.18 illegal conduct charge). Akras then read a synopsis of the agreed-upon facts of both the October 24 and November 20 incidents. Baltimore Police Cadet Emily Neisser corroborated her age and date of birth for the officers (she was 20 years old when she was served alcohol at Maxie’s). There were ten police officers present at the hearing; none but Neisser testified.

Having heard the statement of the facts, Chairman Ward began to move into the decision phase of the hearing, when Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke asked if she could be heard on the matter.

Councilwoman Clarke submitted letters from the Charles Village Civic Association and from her office, explaining the troubles that the community has had with Maxie’s. She told the Board that she came to the hearing to recommend that the establishment’s license be suspended through the end of the spring semester at Johns Hopkins, which would be June 1, 2015. She also asked that Maxie’s be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Charles Village Civic Association and agree to amend their license to include restrictions that they would negotiate with the community. Clarke said that Maxie’s is one of two establishments that Loyola College is most concerned about, with respect to underage drinking. Clarke had received many complaints from neighbors, who hear herds of young people coming out of Maxie’s and out onto the street at closing time. There are already three fraternity houses in this block. Clarke said that she would rather trade in the $8,000 in fines for additional suspended weeks so that Maxie’s “can get themselves together” and “prepare themselves to … resurrect themselves as a good venue.” She clarified that they could be open to serve pizza during the suspension but not alcohol.

Chairman Ward told Councilwoman Clarke that shen he was appointed as the Chairman of the Liquor Board, he came to a situation that was “somewhat… permissive.” Licensees knew that they would get a fine for underage drinking but not a closure. From the beginning, Ward said that his fellow Commissioners started issuing suspensions to licensees as a warning. When the Commissioners find out that the warning hasn’t worked, then the licensees come back for a more serious result. Ward noted that the Board had recently had one prior case (Bosphorus) involving underage Loyola student drinking in which the Board closed the establishment for one month. Ward also said that Maxie’s has had two prior violations for underage drinking in 2012.

Clarke reiterated that Maxie’s has not agreed to enter into any agreement with the community to improve their operations. Sandy Sparks, President of the Charles Village Civic Association, told the Board that CVCA would be very interested in working on an agreement with Maxie’s. She said that the organization has been very successful with other MOUs at other liquor establishments. Mr. Boozer told the Board that he had not had the chance to discuss the possibility of an MOU with his clients.

Commissioner Moore said that she believed that the so-called plea agreement imposed serious penalties. The fact that the Board agreed on the penalty before the hearing “does not take away from the seriousness of what happened here.” She told the licensees that the most egregious act was that a Maxie’s employee told underage students to hide from the police in the bathroom. Moore said that the impact on the community is not small and the impact carries over to communities around Loyola University when the students head home. She reminded the licensees that the license will be up for renewal in the spring, and the community could protest the renewal of the license. She told Boozer that “it would behoove [his] clients to quiet concerns and operate within the law.” She reminded Boozer, to borrow Chairman Ward’s phrase, that “a license is a privilege, not a right,” and the licensees “are so close to losing that privilege.”

Chairman Ward told Councilwoman Clarke that his agency had been making many changes lately; they have “been putting first class people on deck. You’re gong to find that the word is out among the licensees of the City, [that] a warning is a warning.”

Clarke acknowledged that the Board had improved lately. However, she said, “this [‘plea agreement’] was a done deal before we walked in. We didn’t know when we came and basically it was done. We would ask that that not happen again.” She pointed out that the licensees had not made any plans to improve their operations to avoid future violations and community impact. She told the Board that the community should be included in any dealmaking, and that the Board needs to correct the way that communities are contacted. She pointed to the ten police officers who were present for the hearing and said to the Commissioners, “look at all these officers! This is about … one shift of Northern District police officers spending their time in a bar instead of in our neighborhoods, which is ridiculous.”

Zoning R-9
Neighborhood Charles Village
Area demographics 44% White, 35% Black, 3% 2 or more races, 13% Asian, 5% Hispanic ethnicity; 11% households have children under age 18; median household income: $30,130.79; 14% households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? No.
Location of entity’s principal office There is no business entity in Maryland called “Max’s Charles Village, LLC.”
Attorney for licensee Mr. Frank Boozer
# in support 2
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 2
# of inspectors/police officers ~10
Result of hearing Responsible for violations. Six week suspension, $8,000 fine.
Vote tally None taken
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed

Plea agreements in court serve important functions for each side of a case in an overburdened system. The government saves the significant time and money of a trial, and a defendant usually receives a reduction in sentence or some other concession. Where is the benefit for the Liquor Board, however, in a plea agreement like the one in this case? All of the witnesses for the case are present and ready to testify. There were ten police officers present for this case, ready to substantiate their reports. Mr. Akras had presumably prepared his case and could have proceeded with the hearing. The plea doesn’t seem to be saving any governmental money or resources; the only conceivable savings are in time. Is the Liquor Board giving lighter penalties to licensees who violate the law to avoid the inconvenience of a full hearing? These new ‘plea’ deals are unnecessary and reminiscent of pre-2013 audit negotiations by Liquor Board staff, though the outcomes of these negotiations are at least documented and announced publicly at a hearing.

A penalty for a violation of the law should take into account (among other things) the community’s experience with a licensee. If a licensee is usually a responsible operator, sympathetic to community complaints and easy to work with, then s/he likely deserves a lighter penalty for a violation than a licensee who constantly breaks the law and thumbs his nose at his neighbors. The community and their representatives must be involved in negotiating these deals if the LB is going to continue with this process.

Licensees Alexandra Abreu & Maria Hernandez
Business Name El Estanko, LLC
Trading As El Estanko
Address 45 N. Kresson Street
Type of License Class “D” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 4.05(a): Prohibited Hours– November 2, 2014 – At 2:11 AM Officers observed that establishment was open and operating and that patrons being served and allowed to consume alcoholic beverages. Officer observed approximately 17 patrons consuming alcoholic beverages past the establishment’s 1:00 AM closing time.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – November 2, 2014 – At 2:11 AM Officers observed that establishment was open and operating past its restricted hours. Current Class “D” license, as established by Art. 2B, § 6-401, restricts open and operating period of establishment until 1:00AM.

Hearing notes

This violation hearing was originally called first but was postponed because the licensee’s attorney was running late.

When the case was recalled, Thomas Akras, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Liquor Board, presented the Board’s case against the licensee. The licensee, through her attorney, Paul Schuman, admitted the violation. Akras explained that Baltimore City Police Lieutenant Colburn was called to the block where the bar was located because there was a 911 call complaining of loud noise. He noticed that the bar was open after their required closing time of 1:00am, so he knocked on the door to go inside. After a long period of knocking, someone let Colburn inside, and he saw seventeen people sitting at the bar. Colburn told the manager to clear the patrons from the establishment, and the bar was closed.

Paul Schuman, the licensee’s attorney, told the Board that the seventeen people inside were her family members. Commissioner Moore replied that it doesn’t matter if they’re family members or not, if they’re in the bar, consuming alcohol after 1:00am. Schuman responded that he was told that the seventeen people were cleaning up the bar, not drinking. Ward pointed out that his client had already admitted responsibility for the violations in this case. He told Mr. Schuman that people in the alcoholic beverages industry should know that they need to be completely closed for business when their liquor license ends.

Mr. Schuman submitted Articles of Revival for his client’s LLC, two alcohol awareness certificates, and two letters of recommendation from community members. The licensee could not speak English, so Mr. Akras helped translate her brief testimony about the origin of the letters.

Zoning M-3/
Neighborhood Kresson
Area demographics 52% White, 12% Black, 3% Asian, 2% 2 or more races, 30% Hispanic ethnicity, 30% households have children under age 18; Median Household Income: $39,874.02; 18% households live below the poverty line.
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; yes.
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee Mr. Paul Schuman
# in support 1
Attorney for community None
# of protestants 0
# of inspectors/police officers 1
Result of hearing Responsible. Three day suspension, $500 fine.
Vote tally 2-1 (Moore dissenting; she preferred a 1-day suspension)
Portions of state law cited in decision None
Other reasons given for decision None
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed None
Licensees Jeffrey Evans & Jaime Schuster
Business Name Ben & Tim, Inc.
Trading As Favorites Pub
Address 5804 York Road
Type of License Class “BD7” Beer, Wine & Liquor License
Reason for hearing

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare– October 25, 2014 – At approximately 1:00 AM the Baltimore Police Department conducted an underage alcohol investigation at the establishment and found approximately 105 individuals who were identified as being under the age of 21. Due to the egregiously high number of underage patrons served by this establishment, the establishment’s actions constituted a general threat to the safety and general welfare of the community.

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Minors — October 25, 2014 – At approximately 1:00 AM the Baltimore Police Department in conjunction with the Loyola Police Department conducted an underage alcohol investigation at the establishment. Upon entering the establishment officers observed approximately 125 individuals in the bar. Officers were able to identify 105 of those individuals as Loyola students, who were under the age of 18, and who admitted being served and consuming alcohol from the establishment.

Violation of Rule 4.01(a): Minors – December 4, 2014 –While conducting an underage alcohol investigation, Baltimore Police Officers observed four (4) individuals, who they suspected as being underage, enter the establishment at approximately 10:00 PM. Approximately 45 minutes later officers entered the establishment and were able to identify the 4 individuals who they suspected as being underage seated in the bar. All four had alcoholic drinks either in front of them or in their hands. All admitted to being students at Loyola University, all admitted and showed proof of being underage, and all admitted having purchased and consumed alcoholic beverages at the establishment.

Hearing notes The case was not called.
Zoning B-2-2
Neighborhood Rosebank
Area demographics 69% Black, 23% White; 4% Hispanic ethnicity; 29% households have children under age 18; median household income: $44,853; 6.3% of households live below the poverty line
Does corp entity exist, in good standing? Yes; no.
Location of entity’s principal office Baltimore, MD
Attorney for licensee N/A
# in support N/A
Attorney for community N/A
# of protestants N/A
# of inspectors/police officers N/A
Result of hearing N/A
Vote tally N/A
Portions of state law cited in decision N/A
Other reasons given for decision N/A
Issues raised in audit present in this case or other issues observed The case was not called at all. A brief announcement for each postponed case that the hearing would be held on a future date would be helpful.

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer: While the author makes every effort to provide the most accurate and up-to-date information on this blog, the accuracy of some information is subject to change and cannot be guaranteed. Neither the author nor the publisher is responsible for any errors or omissions. All information in this blog is provided “as-is,” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied. This blog is not intended to do harm to, defame, libel, or malign any religious or ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or government entity. In no event will the author, her employer, or the publisher be liable to you or anyone else for any action taken in reliance on the information in this blog or for any consequential, special or similar damages incurred, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

The materials contained on this website have been prepared by Community Law Center, Inc. for informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Copyright: Text, photos and other materials found on this website are the property of CLC, except where otherwise noted. Such materials may not be reproduced without CLC’s written prior consent.