Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

River Road Beverage Company, L.L.C v. Municipal Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the City of Camden

July 29, 2011


On appeal from the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Appeal Nos. 7387 and 7465.

Per curiam.


Submitted May 10, 2011

Before Judges Payne and Koblitz.

On June 23, 2008, the Municipal Alcohol Beverage Control Commission of the City of Camden (Camden ABC) ordered a thirty-day suspension of the liquor license held by River Road Beverage Company, L.L.C., the owner and operator of Rumba Rengue, a Camden club, following the stabbing in the thigh and abdomen of a fifteen-year-old girl by a twenty-year-old girl during the course of the fifteen-year-old's sweet sixteen party at the club. At that time, a special condition was attached to River Road's license prohibiting it from allowing under-age patrons on the premises. On March 9, 2009, the Camden ABC revoked the club's license as the result of an alcohol-fueled homicide involving two minors that originated from a dispute occurring between the two at the club.

The orders were appealed, and the matters were transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as contested cases. Following their consolidation, three days of hearings were held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan M. Scarola who, in an opinion issued on November 19, 2009, affirmed the orders of the Camden ABC, determining that River Road had violated N.J.A.C. 13:2-23.6(b), which provides:

Every licensee shall operate its business in an orderly and lawful fashion, so as not to constitute a nuisance. A licensee's responsibility under this subsection includes the conduct of the licensee, its employees and patrons, if such conduct is contrary to the public health, safety and welfare.

Although River Road also appealed the special condition, the ALJ declined to address that appeal, finding that it had not been properly perfected.

Upon further appeal, the decision of the ALJ was affirmed by a final decision of the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued on May 18, 2010. As stated by the Director:

Notwithstanding its Exceptions to the Judge's Decision, the licensee has failed to address the Judge's finding that on weekends a majority of Camden's police force must be focused on the licensed premises because of the incidents that occur at this location. The licensee disregarded the testimony of the underage patron, whom the Judge found credible, which established a history of permitting underage patrons on the premises and allowing them to consume alcohol. The licensee failed to address the violations of special conditions imposed on the license specifically prohibiting it from allowing underage patrons on the premises (unless it was for a specific business purpose). The licensee failed to address why most of the witnesses to the homicide were patrons between the ages of 14 and 20 years of age who had not been checked at the door for identification, and admitted consuming alcoholic beverages inside the premises.

It, therefore, appears that whatever security measures the licensee had in place were not sufficient to keep underage patrons from entering the business, or mitigate the dangers presented by operation of the licensed business. The licensee argues that Camden did not do enough to stop the incidents from occurring on the licensed premises. I do not agree. Subscribing to this line of reasoning would permit the licensee to abdicate its legal responsibility to safely and responsibly operate a licensed premises, and improperly place this burden squarely on the back of the issuing authority. I am firmly convinced that the City of Camden did not create the perilous environment at the club, but rather, the perilous environment was created by the patrons attracted and admitted into the club by the licensee.

With the exception of one private party, the club has been closed since February 22, 2009, the date of the homicide, and its liquor license remains indefinitely suspended. River Road has appealed.

On appeal, River Road claims that the revocation determination was not supported by the evidence and that Jacqueline Gomez, the owner of River Road, was unfairly made the scapegoat for Camden's endemic lawlessness. However, in proceedings before the ALJ, considerable evidence was presented to support her decision by police officers, neighborhood mothers of under-age patrons, and by an eighteen-year-old club patron. Evidence established that the club was located in a "neutral" area, and thus served patrons from all of Camden's gangs. Although the club had initially attracted an adult clientele, as the result of the club's introduction of reggaeton music nights, it commenced to attract many under-age patrons who, despite club rules to the contrary and a city-wide eleven p.m. weekend curfew, often came to the club late at night with fellow minors, rather than the required adults. Alcohol was served to minors as young as fourteen or was made available to them by the practice of selling entire bottles of liquor for consumption at a table. Most of the twenty witnesses to the homicide interviewed by the police were minors between the ages of fourteen and twenty who had been drinking at the club prior to the shooting; the eighteen-year-old perpetrator had been drinking alcohol at the club before the murder took place. The police estimated that approximately thirty percent of the club's patrons were juveniles.

Additionally, on nights when the club was open, calls regarding the club occupied half of the area's police force and required the presence of twelve to eighteen police cars. Fights, spilling out into the street, were frequent; neighborhood residents complained of public urination, fighting, and obstruction of the sidewalk. A petition bearing 2,200 signatures urged that the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.