Sneakeater

As do whoever ate it.

I think Taro Sushi, off Flatbush Ave. on Dean St., is terrific. It's a branch of a Tokyo place, I think. Which (a) gives it street cred, and (b) raises the question of how a branch of a foreign restaurant could possibly end up in such a godforesaken location.

Yeah, that's it. (Thanks.)

I think you make an important point. This is why I've maintained throughout the thread that people who don't work in New York might be missing the importance of local custom. Whenever my brother-in-law would visit from the Midwest and we'd all take a walk together, he used to wait for the light to change, even when no cars were coming. It used to drive my wife and me crazy. Where he lived, that's the way they did it.

I don't think it would fly, either.

The problem with that response is that in this case, the decisionmaker is the waiter, not Bryan. It's not Bryan who's deciding whether to violate the law, it's the waiter. Anyway, how do you decide how old a child is before you let him cross on the red? Do you go by the age of majority (21)? Or your own idea of the age of discretion?

I understand that. But actually, in Bryan's case, it's the restaurant (not Bryan) that's breaking the law, and the restaurant that will sustain the penalty. You might say that, in Bryan's case, the restaurant is breaking the law for the benefit of another, whereas I'm crossing the street to benefit only myself. But for several reasons (including that the restaurant is also receiving a benefit, inasmuch as it is selling the wine at a profit), I'm not sure that makes a difference.

To forestall discussion of my marital relations, here's another, less sensational and (I hope) more appropriate, example: When I come to a corner when I'm walking, I cross if there are no cars coming. No matter what color the light is. Do I have a "legal obligation" to wait for a green light? I guess so. Would any rational person act differently? I doubt it. Nor is this a matter of "getting away" with anything because I think I won't be caught. I do it in front of policemen. THEY DON'T CARE. Now, if I were in a car, would I do the same thing? No. Because I understand the red light/green light laws are enforced differently against cars and pedestrians -- and rightfully so. Is this "lawless"? No. It's living in reality.

MarkK, that's way too simplistic. And to accuse BryanZ as engaging in "bribery" is absurd. He's just taking account of the way people -- including the people who enforce the law -- actually act. I hate to use this graphic an example, but back when the Supreme Court upheld that sodomy law (a decision subsequently overruled), the New York Times published a map showing which states had sodomy laws and which didn't. My (now late) wife and I jokingly hung it on our bulletin board, saying we could refer to it when deciding where to vacation. That was a joke, as I said, and on occassion we found ourselves in states with sodomy laws. Are you saying we each had a legal obligation to deny each other acts that would be classified as sodomy? Are you saying you would have expected us to do so? Of course not. The idea that just because a law exists, you have an obligation to abide by it no matter what your reasoned judgment as to the consequences (and I'm talking about the consequences to others as well as yourself: I'm not advocating hurting other people because you think you can get away with it -- although I'm sure that people will try to twist this into precisely that) is, as I said, way too simplistic. To say a restaurant has a "legal obligation" to "uphold" a law that they can be fairly sure will not be enforced against them, because they can fairly understand that everyone including the enforcing authorities has determined that their conduct doesn't implicate the law's concerns, is an empty statement. But don't trust me on this. Read Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Jr. Maybe "The Path of the Law." He'd be laughing his ass off at this thread.

If the authorities have decided that serving wine to accompanied minors in fine-dining establishments isn't something that warrants their attention, that doesn't mean New York is the Wild West. As Sam remarked above, there are plenty of laws on the books that aren't enforced uniformly as written, but rather are enforced in a way that reasonably furthers the clear goal of the laws. Why would you expect liquor inspectors to spend time patrolling fine-dining restaurants to stop sales of wine to minors accompanied by their parents (which no one thinks implicates any problem the law is intended to prevent), when the problems that the laws are directed at center on bars and nightclubs (which require constant and expensive supervision)?

I haven't been to Mai House, and so I don't mean this question as a challenge, but only to clarify for myself. Are you saying, oakapple, that in your star universe, Mai House is a star better than Little Owl? Why?

I'll note, if it's of interest to anyone, that a restaurant opened in New York last year that purported to serve the cuisine of the Alto Adige (or at least influenced thereby). But the dining population apparently found Italian food that is so heavily Austrian too weird, and the restaurant retreated to a more standard haute Italian menu.

If I, as a manager, owner and/or chef of my restaurant would have overheard this, I would have had a serious talk with my steward that would have possibly resulted in him loosing his job. I think there's no harm in asking, and if you get served (your ID never checked and so forth) it's the restaurant's fault if they get busted. ← You don't work in New York. Management KNOWS what's going on. This is apparently the way the law is enforced here. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

I'd have liked to know in what way Mai House "works better than" Centrico. Again, that's the kind of remark you can get away with without any supporting explanation as an amateur on the internet, but which just seems useless in a professional review. (Especially given the odd amount of negative commentary about Mai House's food -- which even Bruni acknowledges at the end of his review. It's like, that's a one-star, this is a two-star, and I'm not going to tell you why.)

Price is obviously VERY important to Bruni.

Can anybody explain why "rum" was separated from "spirits" in the first place?

Can I just take a break and say this is one astoundingly interesting discussion?

Hey, wait, doesn't that stand the "class privilege" point on it's head?

In case I haven't been clear, let me try to say this clearly. No one in this thread has said that NYC fine-dining establishments make it a practice to serve alcohol to all underaged patrons in all situations. What we have said is that they generally will serve wine, with dinner, to older minors accompanied by responsible adults. We are not saying that this is consistent with the law. We ARE saying that, because it doesn't lead to any of the dangers the law attempts to prevent, they don't appear to have been held accountable for it. If they acted differently -- if, for example, they indiscriminately served liquor to all minors who wandered in -- I'm sure the enforcement situation would be different. But since they don't do that, it doesn't make sense to argue that the result that would follow if they did must be the one that obtains in reality. Because that isn't reality.

(I hope that if you read the post that immediately follows the one you quoted, what I'm trying to say will become clear.)

No. In the real world, enforced or not is key. If the risk of penalty is minimal, the whole analysis is different. I agree with you that "agree" or "disagree" is irrelevant.

Finally, isn't it odd that, in my 25 years of patronizing NYC fine-dining establishments, I've never seen an accompanied minor denied wine with a meal -- but have also never seen a roomful of binge-drinking underaged college students? Why hasn't it happened yet? You'll say it's because I'm wrong in my impression that NYC fine-dining establishments have regularly served accompanied minors -- but I'll say it's because doing so simply doesn't lead to the evil you anticipate. My point is, the reason the liquor laws aren't enforced against fine-dining places in NYC is because the fine-dining places have been responsible. They haven't courted the underage crowd in the manner you've posited. And so they never created the very visible and objectionable situation you posit. If they did, you can bet the inspections would follow immediately. But, as I said above, that situation has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Also, I've been to Momofuku Ssam several times around 11, and it's never been that crowded. I think it probably gets more crowded later. OTOH, that might change now that they serve "dinner" straight from 6:00 p.m. till closing, rather than closing at 10 and reopening with a "late night" menu at 10:30.

I love Picholine. I don't really know what more to say. If they'll serve a tasting menu as late as you'll want, then I'd certainly give you my highest recommendation to go for it. Hell, I'd even go for their normal three-or-four course prix fixe that late.

In a way, that proves my point. First, we're talking about minors accompanied by an adult. Second, we're talking about wine, not liquor. Third, we're talking about the main dining rooms of restaurants, not their bars. Fourth, we're talking about very expensive restaurants of decidedly "adult" appeal. I know people will say this is further indication of this becoming an exploitation of class privilege, but I find it hard to believe that the main dining room of EMP (much less Per Se) is going to become an NYU hangout because word is going to get out that they sell wine along with their $125 tasting menu. (OTOH, I'm sure Morimoto -- also very expensive, but decidely youth and "party" oriented -- is very careful about whom they serve.)