Nathan

Mayur's post said everything. I too am glad that this is back on the NY board. This is going to sound crass...but it's clear that some people simply don't understand fine dining. and, um, when you're bringing up drinking and driving (which has happened numerous times on this thread)...I get confused. what is this thing you call driving? as for this post: "Do you not know how many spoiled-rotten rich underage kids abuse their parents's wealth to get themselves served alcohol (including intimidating bars and restaurants to look the other way at their fake id) and then go out and kill people with their cars, or commit other foolish acts?" maybe this happens in NJ, it certainly doesn't happen in the city. kids, whether rich or poor, don't need fake ids or need to intimidate anyone to gain access to alcohol.

Buddakan is supposedly quite good. but the scene makes the thought of going there almost unbearable...which is the point. yes, they take reservations. the food at the Spotted Pig is actually more than good. but it's not worth aggravation....unless you're eating very late (1 a.m. or later) -- then it's an excellent option to Blue Ribbon or Mas. some of the food at the Stanton Social is also quite good.

frankly, you have it entirely wrong. I'd suggest reading the thread.

I think this is right. you may get a staff member (a sommelier or something) to admit to it off the record and unknown to the restaurant...but never someone in a position of authority

as has been reiterated over and over again: we are discussing fine dining establishments in Manhattan.

Bryan, after reading that review -- which encapsulated our meal perfectly -- if someone thinks you shouldn't drink wine ever again, I'll kick his _____ myself.

This place is really, really good, folks. I tested them with a few of the classics last night and tried a couple of their own concoctions. Well worth traveling too.

that meal was fricking nuts.... I don't know if I've ever eaten that much pork in a month before..

I concur...with the exception that true tapas or cichetti places are exempt.

I was five when MADD was founded.

I'm ethically obligated not to give a direct opinion on what it doesn't or does cover that someone might rely on.

"It wasn't too long ago that MADD didn't exist and TV stations rarely did any stories on binge drinking." MADD's been around since I've been around. In fact, I think drunk driving was more of an issue in the 80's. "In fact, not long ago bars were not concerned all that much with liability for their patrons (of or under age) actions after they left the establishment." I remember from torts class that such lawsuits have been around for 70 or 80 years. indeed, many states immunized their bars and restaurants from such suits a long time ago. some have not. I don't dispute that the atmosphere in NY could change in the future. of course it did. I'm only concerned with the now. "So if I'm reading the graphic correctly, New York has no law prohibiting minors from consuming alcohol - just purchasing it. Therefore, if Bryan wasn't buying the wine, but his mother was, then it was legal for him to drink. Is that correct?" I ethically can't comment on this.

not posting, just quoting: "but this has NEVER happened to me, and I eat out a ton. For one, I'm with my mommy, I'm not getting wasted. Secondly, back when I was like 17 or something I felt the need to aplogize to the wine captain at Cru for not ordering wine at a restaurant known for it because I was underage. He flat out said that the unofficial, official policy for good restaurants was one of don't ask, don't tell. Needless to say I was thrown off my game, as I may have known persons who may have been underage who may have enjoyed many a great glass of wine while dining at EMP....."

Oh, and as far as empirical experiences go, I too have been out with under21 diners in fine dining establishments, and no one was carded. (Some of them were my dates )

Busboy, MarkK and JohnL: All of your points have already been addressed numerous times on this thread. Please explain what you found insufficent about the specific responses (in some cases preemptive -- I already made it clear that we weren't talking about mere two-star restaurants or any restaurants in the MP or LES...) already given. Not speaking to anyone in particular, but if people are too lazy to read the entire thread they shouldn't be commenting.

"I'm just saying that the posters who have been restaurant owners have certainly not judged it a "small risk", " none of those posters purported to run or own any sort of establishment similar to the ones under discussion here. indeed their examples were entirely inapposite. as for NY restaurant owners in the upper echelon, the fact that their restaurants do indeed routinely serve wine to accompanied minors is prima facie evidence that they do indeed consider the risk to be minimal. this empirical fact alone I think is sufficient to defeat every argument given on this thread. (one instance with one waiter is not proof to the contrary)

FG: could you really conceive of Per Se or Ducasse being raided? really? if the cops ever go in there and card a young-looking diner in front of his/her parents and the entire restaurant, I will personally eat whatever road-kill you select.

"and he's found to have alcohol in his blood, none of the grey rationalizations is going to save the restaurant owner from serious consequences. " since this is a new argument, I'll address it. yes, a slip-and-fall could raise some complications. on the other hand...I can think of plenty of possible defenses.... of course, no one's talking about serving BryanZ three martinis! (he's welcome to have them at my apartment though -- I'll assume the risk)

"or if perhaps they have a reason to be sensitive to underage drinking on their premises. Suppose this was not wine but a round of bourbon and sodas. suppose Bryan's parents allow him to become a little inebriated and he falls on the way to the bathroom and hurts himself or worse another patron. Suppose he, being old enough to have a permit to drive , drives his parents home and...." this paragraph evinces why if you don't live here you're not going to understand the arguments. "Yes, a judge would probably toss this one out but it wouldn't ever get that far." actually, I disagree with this. if a valid citation was issued, it wouldn't be tossed by a court. it might not be prosecuted and simply used as a warning..but it wouldn't have to be. its not that the restaurant wouldn't be violating the law, it's that it wouldn't be cited in the first place. now, I really am going to leave the thread. this is getting pointless.

"As for the use of wine in cooking situation. Technically, this is wrong and from a moral standpoint it is in a gray area (depends upon one's morals) I think most everyone would see no problem morally with an underage person cooking with wine and even if this were somehow prosecuted I doubt we are looking at serious prison time!" I would be flabbergasted if any liquor law on its surface covered using wine in cooking. Why? it's not the consumption of alcohol.

MelissaH: I find it highly unlikely that someone bringing you a bottle of wine to go into coq a vin would be liable for anything -- cause they weren't bringing you alcohol. I too am going to leave this thread because I've come to the conclusion that either a. sneakeater, bryanz and myself are incompetent at making our points clear; or b. there is a wilful lack of reading comprehension on the part of some posters. Every point I see raised has been already addressed up the thread. but to reiterate one last time: a. the law is not as hidebound to technicalities as lawyers think. b. would I as a lawyer advise a client in certain situations that certain regulations almost certainly wouldn't be applied in certain contexts. Absolutely yes. Believe me this comes up in complex, multi-jurisdictional transactions all the time. It has to. Is this advising a client to "break the law"...absolutely not. It is giving a realistic assessment so the client can make their own decision how best to comply. If you can't see the distinction there is no way you could ever manage a complex business. c. true upscale NY restaurants aren't taking a risk. why? first, I would be flabbergasted if any decision was ever made to go after places that might serve wine to an accompanied minor once a week or even once a month. second, is such an absurd decision were made, I have a hard time believing that a warning first wouldn't be issued. third, one under-age citation is not going to close a restaurant...let alone one frequented by the city's rich and powerful. again, we're not talking about college hangouts. fourth, the moment one fine-dining (and in this context I mean this in a very rarified sense -- EMP class or higher...and we should probably exclude the MP area establishments (as Sneakeater already noted) as they are known to draw a younger crowd....and, well, a crowd that drives) establishment gets a citation, they'll all start carding. one final note: as I've already said, I don't see how a restaurant would be busted anyway. if BryanZ posted a list of restaurants that served him wine -- they'd be pissed off, but it wouldn't be proof of anything. they're going to have to catch them in the act. no one's going to raid Per Se folks. I don't care if Ray Kelly is sitting at a table and sees BryanZ and his mom at the table next to him getting wine. BryanZ doesn't look 12. someone who looks 20 could easily be 24. Kelly's not going to call up the LCB, he doesn't even know if BryanZ hasn't already been discreetly carded. and he's certainly not going to have a uniformed officer called in and horribly embarass BryanZ and his mom by having them carded in front of the entire restaurant. This is going to sound snobbish, but if you don't ever eat in this class of restaurant, you might not understand how laughable this scenario is. last night I did a poll of fellow denizens of the city -- ok, it was a self-selected sample -- all lawyers, none of them foodies. every single one thought the idea of a 20 year old accompanied by a parent getting carded at a very-high-end restaurant to be patently absurd. Frankly, I'll take their opinion over anyone who doesn't live in the city.

the EMP reply could have been written by anyone here before they were even asked. heck, they probably had a lawyer write it. when a law is not applied in certain situations...you don't brag about it or draw attention to the fact of non-enforcement. its simply a recognition of the fact that law is intended to deal with real people in a real world. that's why there are concepts like prosecutorial discretion. that's why "technicalities" actually matter far less in litigation than laymen think.

"It as come to my understanding that a interested party made a inquirer to EMP management regarding this situation. The reply went something like... Even though they may not agree with it, it is still their responsibility and their employees to uphold it. No inner personal policy! Just obeying the law and as simple as that." um, speaking as a lawyer, no establishment in their right mind would state anything other than that. no fricking way. maybe they'd say something different to a trusted journalist who agreed to keep the sourcing confidential...but otherwise, heck no! this proves less than nothing.

I'm sure this betrays my complete amateur status...but I use a set of metal cocktail glasses from Sur La Table. so long as you hold them correctly they hold their temperature very well, and they are virtually unbreakable...besides looking stylish. as for a shaker, I confess to using a standard julep shaker -- which works just fine for me...

"So Sneakeater let's not be offended when I don't pour you a glass of Dagueneau Pur Sang when your Mommy orders a bottle." this is so funny on so many levels....most of them unintentional..... edit: on a more serious note, I'd point out that any restaurant in Athens, GA is roughly in the same position as a restaurant on St. Mark's place. hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.