Enforcing Alcohol Law: NYC Fine Dining Restaurants

[markk]

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.

And there you have it, in a nutshell (says the man who dropped out of the thread some time ago).

The question really isn't whether Bryan is dressed up, and whether he's dining in a fine restaurant, and it's not whether the restaurant, having served him alcohol twice in the past, is somehow required to serve him alcohol a third time.

It's whether the restaurant personnell, and Bryan and his parents, have the presence of mind to think through all of the consequences of the situation.

Everybody here is giving rationalizations for why it's okay to declare a grey area around this law, so that a nicely dressed and gastronomically accomplished twenty-year-old can enjoy some fine with with his fine dinner. But in the event of a mishap, these grey areas will turn frighteningly black and white for the restaurant owner.

If he goes to the bathroom and slips on some grease or other item that's on the stairs and requires a trip to the emergency room or a hospitalization, 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.

[JohnL]

"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.

←

You are correct! The law states "possession to consume."

The moral area is in purchasing the alcohol. Most of us are fine with technical crimes like speeding and jay walking and spitting on the sidewalk. However, one should not be suprised that the laws do address consequences of these actions that are potentially more serious. from tieing up traffic to causing an accident or getting run over.--creating a health hazzard etc.

In most cases the system sorts out the seriousness.

[Fat Guy]

I live here, Nathan, and have since I was born. I have plenty of dining experience, probably a lot more than you. I don't find the possibility of an enforcement action against a high-end restaurant to be the slightest bit implausible, and when it happens -- which it surely will at some point (if it hasn't already) -- I hope you'll be here to eat crow.

[Sneakeater]

Would you recommend a different wine for the light meat and the dark meat?

[Nathan]

"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)

Edited January 4, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

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.

[slkinsey]

Everybody here is giving rationalizations for why it's okay to declare a grey area around this law, so that a nicely dressed and gastronomically accomplished twenty-year-old can enjoy some fine with with his fine dinner.  But in the event of a mishap, these grey areas will turn frighteningly black and white for the restaurant owner.

markk, I don't think anyone is suggesting that, in the purely legal sense, the restaurant is not assuming some legal risk. Arguments are being made and examples given for why people believe it is a small risk in the context of NYC fine dining.

I also don't think anyone is "giving rationalizations for why it's okay to declare a grey area around this law." The fact is that this grey area does exist. Fine dining restaurants in NYC have been doing it, and will continue to do it for the forseeable future. It is a de facto grey area.

[JohnL]

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.

←

I also live here (NYC) and I work in the retail wine and liquor business.

As I noted, I believe it is unlikely that high end restaurants would be "raided."

First, while I note it is unlikely, it is well within the realm of possible.

Second, NYC is currently going after clubs where underage patronage and alcohol consumption is rampant due to a few very unfortunate incidents that no one foresaw--mainly the deaths of patrons murdered.

Any such "unforeseen" incident involving a patron of a high end restaurant would likely result in at the least some intense scrutiny of these establishments.

We probably would not be talking "raid"--rather law enforcement would enter these places undercover and observe and probably attempt to "entrap" (legally) the personnel into serving a minor. Recently, the authorities were sending minors undercover into so called "high end" liquor stores. (this was done re: selling cigarettes). A number of high end wine shops were 'caught" selling wine to minors over the internet.

Any establishment high end or low end or any end--selling restricted products like alcohol and tobacco would be foolish to not be aware of the potential for trouble and at least have someone responsible for casting a watchful eye over their businesses if not enacting a formal policy re: minors.

Parents need to be alert as well. There are several cases that caused the authorities in Westchester county to actively go after private parties in private residences where alcohol was consumed by minors, often when parents were present. One such case involved the death of a minor resulting from a fight that occurred at one of these parties.

So what is seemingly improbable one moment can easily become likely the next!

By the way, Toyota announced today that they are well on the way to producing a car that will not start if driven by a person who has been drinking. it actually gauges eye movements and pupil dilation and responds accordingly. a few years ago this was quite improbable--I would say.

[markk]

Arguments are being made and examples given for why people believe it is a small risk in the context of NYC fine dining.

I'm just saying that the posters who have been restaurant owners have certainly not judged it a "small risk", and I'd bet that if you asked Danny Meyer or any other high-end restaurant owner to assess the risk, they wouldn't consider the possibility of losing their liquor license "small".

[markk]

could you really conceive of Per Se or Ducasse being raided?  really? 

Oh, for crying out loud, (as they say).

We're not talking about a movie-style raid where the FBI surrounds dangerous criminals with guns drawn. I'm sure it would happen so discreetly (for many reasons, not the least of which would be that there's always the chance that the young-looking person might actually be over 21) that most people wouldn't even notice it happening.

I'd imagine that if law enforcement was present for any reason - such as the possibility that a high ranking elected official, or celebrity were present - as has been suggested, or if agents were sent because they received complaints from people in the Temperance movement - they'd quitely identify themselves to the management, and if they spotted a potentially underage person drinking wine, that they or the management might go to that person discreetly and ask him to produce ID - which would be totally within their right - and as I say, I'd hope and imagine that they'd do it very quitely and very discreetly, and not kick down the doors with their guns drawn at Per Se and scream "Police - this is a raid - everybody on the floor with your hands outstrecthed!"

[Fat Guy]

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.

←

Per Se or Ducasse (when it reopens) would be super-desirable targets for enforcement. There's not much that makes prosecutors and enforcement bureaucrats happier than taking down a few overprivileged people in order to demonstrate that nobody is above the law. Would it be a uniformed raid? Probably not. More likely an undercover operation culminating in a press release, penalties and such.

[Nathan]

"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)

[Busboy]

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)

←

Your assertion is not an empiricle fact. In fact, this entire thread is essentially devoid of empirical facts. Thus, we await your statistically sound survey of the wine-service habits of local New York restaurants with two stars or more with bated breath. Actually, I'd like to see responses broken down by star, average check and zip code to see what, if any, variation we find in the sub-categories. Breakdown by waiter, owner and sommelier would be fun, too, but likely too costly and time-consuming.

(I took a quick gander at the NYC website but couldn't find anything but a few press releases. Have a happy MulchFest, all.)

[JohnL]

"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)

←

I am curious. You note that "...restaurants do indeed routinely serve wine to accompanied minors..."

Is this really true?

Basically, the restaurant would have to know that the person in question was actually a minor.

I am sure that we are talking borderline folks in terms of appearance. So if a person could be twenty one that is one thing but I doubt that we are talking about people who are clearly minors.

Are you saying that a place would serve someone who looked twelve?

Also there can't possibly, relative to the overall universe of people who dine at these places, be a large number of these instances?

I do believe that law enforcement would be much more likely to focus regularly on places where unaccompanied minors could purchase alcohol in quantity--convenience stores, liquor stores, clubs, bars etc.

However, I do agree with FG that a high end restaurant could become a target --and more easily than you might think--for the reason he gave--high profile make a point/example prosecution. Also for the reason I gave: an unfortunate incident involving a patron.

In the end--I believe that the responsibility lies mostly with the parents and the minor who are putting the restaurant in an unfortunate position to either risk "offending" them as patrons or assuming risk themselves.

[markk]

as for NY restaurant owners in the upper echelon, the fact that their restaurants do indeed routinely serve wine to accompanied minors

A point of order, If I'm allowed to call for one...

I don't remember seeing any documented proof on this thread that the above claim is true, save for Bryan's specific post that he had been served alcohol a few times previously at EMP.

Would those people who can substantiate this claim please re-submit their proof?

(Thanks.)

[Sneakeater]

Not posting, just quoting (#1)

Now that I've read the whole thread, I'll throw some chips into the ring. When I was underage (3 years ago) I was Never Once carded in a fancy restaurant in New York. Ever. . . .

. . . . My first drink of wine (and subsequent drunkeness) was at a highly regarded bastion of french cuisine, that has since closed. The chef/ owner poured me the glass himself. . . .

All I know is this tradition in New York City has been this way for as long as I remember, . . . .

←

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Daniel]

I think that before they start cracking down on places like Per Se, they should tell the candy store up the block from me to stop selling weed.. They should tell the candy store next to my car dealership to stop selling coke, they should stop the Tailor shop by St. Marks St. from selling hash(actually leave these guys alone ).. They should get prostitutes out of free newspaper publications being handed out around the city.. They should close the late night Japanese Hostess clubs that stay open until 9 am and allow smoking and other shady things in them, or the massage parlors, or the Poker Rooms, or the Drug Delivery Services, or the late night restaurants that open up and allow open drug use in the back.. They should stop illegal immigrants from working in restaurants, they should stop a lot of things.. Drinking in a restaurant, not high on the list of laws being broken out in the open..

I say that whatever the laws are, whatever extreme scenarios people are going to come up with, we are talking about NEW YORK CITY.. The rules are and should be different here.. Seriously, of course its breaking the law and yatta yatta yatta.. My simple answer is, its New York, are you kidding me about drinking??? Really, its New York and that really is the only consideration..

Edited January 4, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[Sneakeater]

Not posting, just quoting (#2)

I take nieces and friends' children out to dinner all the time.  I've simply never encountered what happened to Bryan.

←

[Nathan]

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.

[Nathan]

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 )

Edited January 4, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

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....."

[JohnL]

First--Alcohol consumption is a privilege it is not a right. It is similar to driving a car. We have determined that there should be age limits/restrictions which ensure the safety of all of us. We can quibble with the age restriction--should it be eighteen or twenty one or whatever.

I don't think I agree with this at all. I suppose one may say that the government of the United States has decided to take the position that alcohol consumption outside of one's home is a privilege rather than a right. But I don't agree that it's anything like driving a car at all. There is no reason whatsoever that the government should be sticking their nose into what I drink in the privacy of my own home. I think it's also worthy of note that the only reason we have a legal drinking age in this country at all is a combination of the aftereffects of the misguided temperance movement and a desire to reduce drunk driving accidents (with respect to the latter, I should hasten to point out that the same effect could be achieved by lowering the drinking age to 18 and raising the minimum age requirement for a driver's license to 21).

Certainly I plan to introduce my children, when I have them, to reasonable amounts of alcohol quite early in their lives. This is commonplace in many countries. In Belgium, for example, it is not unusual for children as young as 5 years old to have a small glass of low-alcohol beer (tafelbier) with a meal. There was even a program in Belgian schools to replace soft drinks with tafelbier!

←

I love libertarians!

The "government" is --us!-- last time I looked we hold elections every November (primaries too).

I got news for you. What is illegal outside the home (on public property) is also illegal inside your home. That goes for underage drinking as well as driving

a car without a license! (well not in the house but say in your driveway).

As for that European" thing. Most European countries have a legal age for alcohol consumption of sixteen or eighteen. yes, there are exceptions made for alcohol consumed at home (interestingly, some states in the US make similar exceptions).

However--

If you look into what the EU is up to presently you will see:

Europe has a very serious drinking problem especially among young people. Alcoholism is a very serious problem in most countries. Most every country is enacting stricter laws--in fact--wine consumption is down in France due to stricter laws that are impacting their domestic wine industry.

as for the privacy thing--the stated goal of the EU is that at least 55% of all drivers be stopped and tested for alcohol with a few years. I would say a good bet is five year old kids will not be drinking beer legally at home for much longer. Europe is moving toward approaches that have already been in practice here in the US. I would also note that if you are concerned with government intrusion into your life you should look at Europe and the EU--there is no comparison.

So back to the good old US:

True, the "government" is not really all that interested in what your kids drink at home--however, as I mentioned, several incidents involving underage drinking at homes where in many cases parents were present resulting in injury and death have caused the government to be more focused on this problem. No one can enter your home without a search warrant so I wouldn't make much of your privacy issues.

[Daniel]

I love  libertarians!

I got news for you. What is illegal outside the home (on public property) is also illegal inside your home.

←

Not true at all.. Lets time I checked, its illegal to masterbate in public. However, I know another place in New York....

Edited January 4, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[docsconz]

So back to the good old US:

True, the "government" is not really all that interested in what your kids drink at home--however, as I mentioned, several incidents involving underage drinking at homes where in many cases parents were present resulting in injury and death have caused the government to be more focused on this problem. No one can enter your home without a search warrant so I wouldn't make much of your privacy issues.

←

If I am not mistaken most of these issues concerned the fact that kids other than the parents' own were involved with drinking and without their parents knowledge or permission. I believe that this is a very different issue than what has been presented here in this topic.

[slkinsey]

JohnL, if you look at all the legal steps being taken, I think you will find that thay are all done with the goal of preventing drunk driving -- something I support (er, preventing it, that is, not doing it).

As for European drinking ages:

Austria: 14 with your parents, 16 for beer, 18 for spirits

Belgium: 16 (no age restrictions on beer and wine in shops)

France: 16

Germany: 16 for beer, 18 for spirits (no age restrictions in private)

Greece: 16 (no age restrictions in private)

Hungary: 0 in bars/restaurants, 18 in shops (rarely enforced)

Ireland: 18

Italy: 16 in bars/restaurants, 0 in shops

Netherlands: 16 <22% ABV), 18 >22% ABV

Spain: 18

Switzerland 0 in bars/restaurants, 14–16 for beer and wine and 18 for spirits in shops

United Kingdom: 5 in bars/restaurants (with parent), 18 in shops

As for the US, here's an interesting graphic.

Wikipedia says: "Contrary to popular belief, few states specifically prohibit minors' consumption of alcohol in private settings (an exception includes Connecticut). ... As of 2006, 20 states do not specifically ban underage consumption and an additional 15 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws."