Enforcing Alcohol Law: NYC Fine Dining Restaurants

[slkinsey]

I can't imagine there is a restaurateur alive in this City that would cop to tacitly serving almost-legal-looking kids in the presence of their parents, with or without a promise of anonymity. Rather, I can only assume they would say that they do everything they can to make sure it never, ever happens.

[Nathan]

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

[Hest88]

I'm going back to the very beginning. From what I gathered, the initial point was that an underage drinker believed that not being served alcohol was a *service* issue and not a legal issue. I understand all the squishier arguments being thrown around, but I think they all camouflage the fact that the only certainty *is* the legal issue--and in terms of legalities the waiter was squarely in the right.

[Nathan]

frankly, you have it entirely wrong.

I'd suggest reading the thread.

[cdh]

That's exactly the way I'm reading it. Maybe we're speaking different languages here.

Or maybe you'd just like to meet in an alley someplace and you can try to kick somebody or other's ___ like you offered over in the Ssam Bar thread. That would settle it.

[robert40]

That's exactly the way I'm reading it.  Maybe we're speaking different languages here.

Or maybe you'd just like to meet in an alley someplace and you can try to kick somebody or other's ___ like you offered over in the Ssam Bar thread.  That would  settle it. 

←

Well at least were now on the same page. If I recall correctly assault was not enforced in LES in the 70's.

[cdh]

I do have to ask the "other side" of this debate:

Would a beer pairing merit a similar waiver of enforcement that you advocate for wine? If not, then why not? Is wine special in a way that martinis, bourbon-and-sodas, or other boozy bevs are not?

[Sneakeater]

Hard liquor: different

Beer: not different

[Sneakeater]

Would a beer pairing merit a similar waiver of enforcement that you advocate for wine?  If not, then why not?  Is wine special in a way that martinis, bourbon-and-sodas, or other boozy bevs are not?

←

This right here shows what the basic misunderstanding is between "your" side and "mine".

We are not "advocating" a waiver of enforcement.

We are pointing to a circumstance that actually exists and has existed for as long as any of us can remember.

(Also, BTW, with reference to a prior post, we're not arguing "statutory interpretation". We're arguing that this is the way the statute has been applied by those charged with enforcing it. It sure doesn't read that way: I think we all agree about that.)

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Sam said it better yesterday:

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.

←

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[cdh]

Hmmm... perhaps I've been reading sentences meant to be declarative as normative. I don't think the language is clear.

I've been speaking normatively.

Edited January 6, 2007 by cdh (log)

[markk]

Hmmm... perhaps I've been reading sentences meant to be declarative as normative.  I don't think the language is clear.

I've been speaking normatively.

←

Yeah, what he said.

But I for one haven't seen any documentation that this really happens, other than from two posters who said that they'd been served alcohol in upscale NYC restaurants when underage, and that's statistically insignificant. Everybody else has just said that 'of course, we all know it happens all the time', but I don't accept that.

And others have been saying that it happens all the time because of an unspoken rule that it's okay to serve wine to underage people in NYC fine dining restaurants, and that because it happens all the time, that establishes the precedent for the rule.

But as I see it, the two people who were served might genuinely have been (mis)taken by the servers as clearly being of legal age.

And I do think that the implication has definitely been made by some in the thread that the fact that we're talking about glasses of fine wine, and not pints of beer, justifies the unspoken rule, and I don't agree with that either.

As far as what a restaurateur would say if he weren't identified by name or by restaurant, who knows what light he'd shed on the thread?

[emilyr]

Completely disregarding the legal issues and what SHOULD be done, I was most hit by the attitude of the diner who was refused. Maybe it does have to do with class and area. I grew up middle class and in the midwest, but I still was offered or ordered wine or beer with meals before I was 21, a few times in the presence of my parents and with other friends, and never in restaurants of the same caliber, but fairly high for my small-town area. Sometimes I was allowed it, and sometimes I was carded and refused. I don't think any time I was refused I was ever "schocked or disturbed." If anything at all, I was the opposite - greatful and happy that I was allowed to drink the wine, beer, etc.

But I don't know if I can blame him...maybe. He's been used to it, but for me it was more of 40-60 shot of getting allowed; when you don't get what you're used to getting, it can suck. Is this New York issue? I'd say no. I'm sure I could find cases of people talking the same in Chicago, LA, San Francisco, etc. I just find it a little sad (??but I don't know if that's the right word either???) that anyone of any class, location, age, race would feel "Shocked and disturbed" in this situation. Assuming the waiter/manager/bartender was just trying to cover his ass, how could you be upset unless they were really rude about it? (And even then, only really be pissed at the rudeness.) I think, if anything, the situation should be just considered a wash - you got a good dinner, but the waiter bobbled the timing of when to ask for ID. (If that's the main problem with the story. If he'd asked for the ID first and then taken the mom's order but refused Bryan, would this even be an issue?)

I hope this is coherent enough.

And, yes, before you ask, I read the whole thread!

[Mayur]

Hmmm... perhaps I've been reading sentences meant to be declarative as normative.  I don't think the language is clear.

I've been speaking normatively.

←

Yeah, what he said.

But I for one haven't seen any documentation that this really happens, other than from two posters who said that they'd been served alcohol in upscale NYC restaurants when underage, and that's statistically insignificant. Everybody else has just said that 'of course, we all know it happens all the time', but I don't accept that.

←

Accept it or not; my NYC underage dining experiences where wine was included are easily over 100, which is a perfectly decent n-value for this sort of thing. (Incidentally, "statistically significant" isn't what you're looking for; you're concerned with sample size, which is a bit different.) Add in the experiences of my friends (most of whom grew up in NYC in the '80s-'90s) and I'd say there's a pretty decent basis for assuming that high-end restaurants in NY really don't card in typical dining circumstances.

To be honest, I still cringe when I get asked for my ID when ordering a glass of wine or a beer at a restaurant (something that NEVER happens to me in NYC; here I get carded at the door, at music venues, at bars that have a strong college quotient and have recently been leaned on by the NYPD, and nowhere else, really. Maybe I lack Daniel's baby-face?)

That said, and notwithstanding the experience of many, many diners who grew up in NY sampling alcoholic beverages at their parents' behest rather than the strict drinking age, the law does not contain "grey areas." By the wording of the relevant statute, Per Se is just as liable for pouring an underage diner a glass of Sauternes as a dive bar is for handing an underage drinker a beer.

The law itself is vastly different both from the way it is enforced and from the desired social norm of people who enjoy beer or wine with food. Our food culture is basically all imported; our haute cuisine culture is primarily imported from France, where the drinking age is certainly *not* 21 and wine is consumed in the home and at restaurants at a much younger age than that. Most other countries, in fact, do not enforce their drinking age laws at all, assuming they have them (over 130 countries do not have any regulations or statutes governing the consumption of alcohol by minors). However, just because we may want to go to Ducasse and have the same dining experience that an 18-year-old can have in Paris doesn't mean the law condones it.

Personally, in the case of the experience that started it all, I'll bet that it was the result of an inexperienced server and not a manifestation of some sort of extreme consciousness about the drinking age on the part of the EMP management. I doubt the situation will change; restos in NYC, and not just the high level, are very unlikely to ever ask for ID unless they are enforcement targets (unlikely in the case of the haute cuisine establishments).

emily: You may be struck by Bryan's attitude, but rest assured the situation was pretty unusual for NY. As I mentioned above, almost NO restaurant in Manhattan asks for ID unless the situation itself is odd. Establishments just don't card here the way they do in the rest of the country. As someone who does most of my eating out either in NY or abroad, I have to say that it's infinitely more civilized not to feel like you're getting pulled over by the highway patrol while sitting at a nice dinner. "Shocked and disturbed" goes a little beyond my reaction; "piqued" would probably be it.

Again, I think the issue is cultural. EMP is fundamentally a haute cuisine restaurant; the idea of wine with one's food is therefore sort of integral to the experience. EMP's analogues in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, etc. etc. have drinking ages of 18 at the highest, and enforcement is nonexistent, with none of the penalties even on the books that most US restaurants have to deal with (serious fines, suspension of license... although I have a *very* hard time believing the latter ever happens in NY). Not having wine with one's food at a restaurant of that level and type can be a pretty serious letdown, and it certainly is an unfortunate reminder of how our liquor laws and their supporting regulations can be at odds with educating younger people about gastronomy. (Compare, for example, with the French tradition of offering students a week of discount haute cuisine meals complete with excellent wines!)

Edited January 6, 2007 by Mayur (log)

[DutchMuse]

Whatever the merits of NYC's law, its still the law. EMP is a very visible restaurant--on everybody's radar. Can you imagine the attention it would be getting, and the pages of posts of "how dumb" if they got charged with serving alcohol to a minor and lost their liquor license? How many then would be inconvenienced?

[Sneakeater]

Hmmm... perhaps I've been reading sentences meant to be declarative as normative.  I don't think the language is clear.

I've been speaking normatively.

←

Sorry to be unclear.

I've been speaking declaratively (although it helps that I agree with the status quo).

That's really the point: "my" side isn't advocating a change. We're advocating a continuation of the status quo.

[Sneakeater]

Hmmm... perhaps I've been reading sentences meant to be declarative as normative.  I don't think the language is clear.

I've been speaking normatively.

←

Yeah, what he said.

But I for one haven't seen any documentation that this really happens, other than from two posters who said that they'd been served alcohol in upscale NYC restaurants when underage, and that's statistically insignificant. Everybody else has just said that 'of course, we all know it happens all the time', but I don't accept that.

←

Accept it or not; my NYC underage dining experiences where wine was included are easily over 100, which is a perfectly decent n-value for this sort of thing. (Incidentally, "statistically significant" isn't what you're looking for; you're concerned with sample size, which is a bit different.) Add in the experiences of my friends (most of whom grew up in NYC in the '80s-'90s) and I'd say there's a pretty decent basis for assuming that high-end restaurants in NY really don't card in typical dining circumstances.

To be honest, I still cringe when I get asked for my ID when ordering a glass of wine or a beer at a restaurant (something that NEVER happens to me in NYC; here I get carded at the door, at music venues, at bars that have a strong college quotient and have recently been leaned on by the NYPD, and nowhere else, really. Maybe I lack Daniel's baby-face?)

That said, and notwithstanding the experience of many, many diners who grew up in NY sampling alcoholic beverages at their parents' behest rather than the strict drinking age, the law does not contain "grey areas." By the wording of the relevant statute, Per Se is just as liable for pouring an underage diner a glass of Sauternes as a dive bar is for handing an underage drinker a beer.

The law itself is vastly different both from the way it is enforced and from the desired social norm of people who enjoy beer or wine with food. Our food culture is basically all imported; our haute cuisine culture is primarily imported from France, where the drinking age is certainly *not* 21 and wine is consumed in the home and at restaurants at a much younger age than that. Most other countries, in fact, do not enforce their drinking age laws at all, assuming they have them (over 130 countries do not have any regulations or statutes governing the consumption of alcohol by minors). However, just because we may want to go to Ducasse and have the same dining experience that an 18-year-old can have in Paris doesn't mean the law condones it.

Personally, in the case of the experience that started it all, I'll bet that it was the result of an inexperienced server and not a manifestation of some sort of extreme consciousness about the drinking age on the part of the EMP management. I doubt the situation will change; restos in NYC, and not just the high level, are very unlikely to ever ask for ID unless they are enforcement targets (unlikely in the case of the haute cuisine establishments).

emily: You may be struck by Bryan's attitude, but rest assured the situation was pretty unusual for NY. As I mentioned above, almost NO restaurant in Manhattan asks for ID unless the situation itself is odd. Establishments just don't card here the way they do in the rest of the country. As someone who does most of my eating out either in NY or abroad, I have to say that it's infinitely more civilized not to feel like you're getting pulled over by the highway patrol while sitting at a nice dinner. "Shocked and disturbed" goes a little beyond my reaction; "piqued" would probably be it.

Again, I think the issue is cultural. EMP is fundamentally a haute cuisine restaurant; the idea of wine with one's food is therefore sort of integral to the experience. EMP's analogues in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, etc. etc. have drinking ages of 18 at the highest, and enforcement is nonexistent, with none of the penalties even on the books that most US restaurants have to deal with (serious fines, suspension of license... although I have a *very* hard time believing the latter ever happens in NY). Not having wine with one's food at a restaurant of that level and type can be a pretty serious letdown, and it certainly is an unfortunate reminder of how our liquor laws and their supporting regulations can be at odds with educating younger people about gastronomy. (Compare, for example, with the French tradition of offering students a week of discount haute cuisine meals complete with excellent wines!)

←

This says everything I've ever tried to say in this thread. Thanks. Now, if have the disclipline, I can shut up.

[slkinsey]

But I for one haven't seen any documentation that this really happens, other than from two posters who said that they'd been served alcohol in upscale NYC restaurants when underage, and that's statistically insignificant.  Everybody else has just said that 'of course, we all know it happens all the time', but I don't accept that.

markk, I don't understand what better evidence you're going to get. If nothing will convince you that this is so beyond a peer-reviewed controlled study with a large sample size and a p value of 0.001, then you're not going to be convinced. I note that note that not one single person who has any meaningful experience in NYC fine dining has come forward to say that it is not the status quo in NYC fine dining restaurants for late-teens with their parents to be served wine.

That's really the point:  "my" side isn't advocating a change.  We're advocating a continuation of the status quo.

I, at least, am not even arguing for a continuation of the status quo. I'm simply pointing out that it is the status quo and giving some reasons why I think it is so.

[oakapple]

I'm amazed at the number of commenters on this thread who don't seem to understand why the law is what it is, as well as the lack of support for leaving it that way. So let me give it a try.

Historically, the age of emancipation in the U.S. was 21. It was changed to 18 after the Vietnam War, on the theory that if you were old enough to be drafted into the army, and sent away to die for your country, then you ought to be old enough do the other things adults do, such as vote and order a beer.

The problem is that some high school students turn 18 during their senior year. And once one student in the school can legally buy alcohol, the whole school has access. There were many highly publicized incidents of underage students behaving recklessly, deaths from drunk driving, and so forth. The police can arrest the kid who bought the alcohol in the first place, but you can't bring back the dead. Increasing the penalty doesn't really help, because kids that age just don't have the good judgment to appreciate the consequences.

At first, some states changed the legal age to 19, but many 19-year-olds have friends that are still in high school, so it wasn't really an effective solution. So the age was set to 21, to provide a 3-year buffer between the legal drinking population and the oldest high school students. There can be no reasonable doubt that this saved young lives.

Now, I fully agree that if 20-year-old BryanZ wants to have a drink with his mom in Eleven Madison Park, it's not remotely close to the actual problem that New York State was seeking to regulate when it established the legal age at 21. But laws aren't always written with the precision of a scalpel. As amply documented on this thread, 20-year-olds in Bryan's position nearly always get served anyway. Revising the law to carve out a new exception doesn't really strike me as the legislature's most pressing problem.

[Sneakeater]

And I don't think anyone here really cares to have the law revised.

That's really the point. Laws sometimes can't be drafted with the precision of a scalpel. But they can be sensibly enforced.

What I don't understand is all the outrage at the idea that this might be (and, more to the point, has been) done.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[markk]

I'm amazed at the number of commenters on this thread who don't seem to understand why the law is what it is, as well as the lack of support for leaving it that way. So...

Your whole post was really kind-natured, and we need that here. But I don't think that that was the focal point of the thread, or where it really took off. I think it was this comment by Bryan that's sparking all the debate and disagreement...

That I'm able to dine at nice restaurants and am accustomed to ordering a glass of wine with my parents has nothing to do with class but rather habit and precedence.  All I noted was that this has NEVER happened to me before in NYC, so I thought it shocking and slightly unsettling.

An interesting theoretical question for Bryan would be (I think), if he were in a fine-dining Chinese restaurant (e.g. Shun Lee Palace) before the smoking ban took effect in NYC, would he think that the management should look the other way if a well-dressed person about to indulge in a very expensive Chinese feast were to smoke a joint at the table? I mean, this is New York City after all and the cops generally look the other way because they have more important things to do than bust people for smoking pot, (because although pot's technically illegal, nobody enforces the law on a person with one joint's worth for his own use) - let alone when they're paying top dollar for an upscale Chinese meal (and it's an accepted fact that pot probably does more to ehnance that meal than an alcoholic accompaniment).

Any takers?

Edited January 6, 2007 by markk (log)

[Sneakeater]

While I'm venting, what I also can't understand is some of the hostility toward Bryan.

People are actually saying things like, "I've got your number buddy. You just want to get buzzed." What a bunch of bullshit. How many of you (other than u.e.) would generally consider having a "fine" meal without wine? Is it because you want to get "buzzed", or because you think wine is an integral part of haute cusine?* If you've ever read Bryan's posts, you can see he's at least as knowledgeable and passionate about cuisine as anyone else here. Why should his motives be impugned because he's "only" 20?

This is beating a dead horse, I know, but I'm also struck by the bogus "parade of horribles" reasoning that some people have advanced. "Start serving wine to minors at fine-dining restaurants, and they'll get overrun by minors using them to get drunk." Well, since the restaurants have been in fact doing that as long as anyone can remember, and they haven't yet become overrun with drunk teenagers, I don't see that as a very valid concern. I mean, I can just see the word spreading around NYU: "Hey gang, get this! There's this place called Per Se, where all you have to do is redial repeatedly the morning of the day exactly two months before you want to go there, and then, if you're lucky, you can get seated at either 6 p.m. or 11 p.m., and you have to wear a jacket, and buy a $250 nine-course menu, but they'll serve you wine with it. Let's go and get a buzz on!" Really.

__________________________________________________________

* There are people here who've argued that a restaurant shouldn't even be eligible for more than a single NYT star if it doesn't have wine service, because wine is so integral to any fine-dining experience.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

I'm amazed at the number of commenters on this thread who don't seem to understand why the law is what it is, as well as the lack of support for leaving it that way. So...

Your whole post was really kind-natured, and we need that here. But I don't think that that was the focal point of the thread, or where it really took off. I think it was this comment by Bryan that's sparking all the debate and disagreement...

That I'm able to dine at nice restaurants and am accustomed to ordering a glass of wine with my parents has nothing to do with class but rather habit and precedence.  All I noted was that this has NEVER happened to me before in NYC, so I thought it shocking and slightly unsettling.

An interesting theoretical question for Bryan would be (I think), if he were in a fine-dining Chinese restaurant (e.g. Shun Lee Palace) before the smoking ban took effect in NYC, would he think that the management should look the other way if a well-dressed person about to indulge in a very expensive Chinese feast were to smoke a joint at the table? I mean, this is New York City after all and the cops generally look the other way because they have more important things to do than bust people for smoking pot, (because although pot's technically illegal, nobody enforces the law on a person with one joint's worth for his own use) - let alone when they're paying top dollar for an upscale Chinese meal (and it's an accepted fact that pot probably does more to ehnance that meal than an alcoholic accompaniment).

Any takers?

←

That's easy, mark.

There has never been a practice of permitting consumption of marijuana in fine-dining restaurants in New York. Ever. There has never been any reason for management to expect that whatever laws are in place against permitting marijuana use in a commercial establishment (and I have no idea what they are) wouldn't be enforced against them if they permitted smoking in a public area.

This is completely irrelevant.

Don't you see? We're not talking about hypotheticals. We're talking about an actual practice that's actually been in place for as long as any of us can remember. We're not talking about what you should be able to expect; we're talking about what you can expect.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[markk]

"Hey gang, get this!  There's this place called Per Se, where all you have to do is redial repeatedly exactly two months before you want to go there, and then, if you're lucky, you can get seated at either 6 p.m. or 11 p.m., and you have to wear a jacket, and all you have to buy a $250 nine-course menu, but they'll serve you wine.  Let's go and get a buzz on!" 

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?

I'm still hoping somebody answers my theoretical pot quesion above...

[Sneakeater]

"Hey gang, get this!  There's this place called Per Se, where all you have to do is redial repeatedly exactly two months before you want to go there, and then, if you're lucky, you can get seated at either 6 p.m. or 11 p.m., and you have to wear a jacket, and all you have to buy a $250 nine-course menu, but they'll serve you wine.  Let's go and get a buzz on!" 

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?

I'm still hoping somebody answers my theoretical pot quesion above...

←

Answered above.

The "Do you know how many" paragraph, is, IMO, insulting. Do you actually GO to "fine dining" restaurants in New York? We're not talking about dissolute rich kids intimidating restaurants into serving them alcohol. We're talking about restaurants that use their judgment as to who to serve wine to as part of the meals they serve.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)