Enforcing Alcohol Law: NYC Fine Dining Restaurants

[Sneakeater]

Without wanting to sound too obsessed about this, to me the salient point is that, throughout all Giulini/Bloomberg nightlife crackdowns, there has never been a hint of a peep of a move against wine service in fine-dining establishments. (I'm not talking about CB3's hyperNIMBY attempt to block any and all new liquor license applications -- and note that EMP is nowhere near CB3.)

And really, that's pretty consistent with what both those administrations have seemed to be concerned with, which is keeping the streets (in a metophorical sense) clean, quite, and orderly.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Carolyn Tillie]

That would be on-point if this law were ever enforced in like places in like circumstances.

←

Actually, I worked at the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and when I was in enforcement (as a clerk, not an officer), it was enforced quite often at very high-end restaurants.

Why?

Because of the fines involved -- serving underage people encrues huge fines for the state and the more the department goes after 'em, the more funds in the state's coffers.

Now for me this was 20 years ago and in San Diego, but I doubt the practice of enforcing it has subsided.

[Sneakeater]

in San Diego

←

Key words.

[cdh]

I think this thread is bringing up a sad facet of American life today- class differences do really affect the subjective sense of applicability of the laws to various people.

I think the sense of entitlement that Bryan's initial post displayed set this issue up to be a bit divisive based on one's class background or affinity. I admit that I have no problem with folk of Bryan's age enjoying a glass of wine with dinner, and I was certainly doing it myself at that age and earlier (first in England legally, and then in NYC in the laxer pre-Giuliani days).

Bryan's clearly a privileged kid with remarkably good taste for somebody his age... but he's not living in the real world if he thinks that alcohol laws don't apply to him, or that establishments might not actually face consequences if they get busted serving him. While the customs and way of carrying themselves of most of the people doing the inspecting (also a class issue) might make them stick out like a sore thumb in a 3 star restaurant, that is not universal. (Hell... I'd consider a career change if booze inspector carried an expense account to dine at places like EMP and Per SE.)

Edited January 3, 2007 by cdh (log)

[godito]

It's crazy that a 20 year old can't drink in a bar, it's even crazier that s/he can't share some wine with dinner. I come from a culture where 18 is the legal drinking age, and the last time I was carded I was probably 24 and was living in Ohio at the time. It's a crazy law that should be revised.

However, it IS the law. You can't really blame a server or an establishment for not serving anyone underage. Who knows if they had commited any kind of infraction in the past few months and were "under probation". Who knows if the server walked by a supervisor who said "that kid doesn't look old enough". Who knows if they had just finished a seminar on alcohol policies and were just applying what was just learned.

Now, we know and the server knows that his tip will be reduced for doing so... plus, there will be less alcohol consumed in the table and the bill will be less (again, a reduced tip), so, really, why would he do it? Maybe he's just a moralist, or maybe a friend or family member was injured in an accident involving an underage drunk driver, but more likely, there was another reason.

I have worked in restaurants, and have met many managers. Many will look the other way, but none will ever tell you that it's okay to serve minors. Ever. It's just too big a risk: bad publicity, a fine and possible license lost (would you go to a fine dinning restaurant if they could not sell you wine?)

Also, about the not enforcing the law thing, picture the following scenario: Three kids eat at a restaurant, share a bottle of wine, drive off and hit some guy. That guy callas the cops, the cops realize the dirver is underage and has been drinking, so the guy, adviced by his lawyer, of course, goes after the restaurant. Unlikely? yes. Worth the risk? hmmm

[KatieLoeb]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. If the restaurant chose not to serve a minor (in the drinking sense), that is both their perogative and the law. Losing their license is most definitely a serious matter. Why couldn't a parent simply share their glass with their underage child when the waiter isn't hovering about? I seriously doubt that a restaurant would get involved at that level anymore then they'd tell the parent whether they could serve their child in the confines of their own home. At that point they aren't serving the underage drinker, the parent is. If the parent then gets charged because an ABC agent or teetotaling evangelist is at the next table then that's the risk they take. But don't put it on the restaurant. Even if the parent serves their underage child wine at the dinner table in their own home they could technically be charged for providing alcohol to minors. Why would they expect a bunch of strangers to take on that risk for them in their place of business? They aren't paying them for that - they're paying them for the food and beverages consumed, just like the tables that order non-alcoholic beverages.

It's a shame that the situation might not have been handled in the most gracious fashion, but it's hardly fair to expect the restaurant to do something illegal just because it's convenient for you and what you want at the time or "expect".

As for the fact that Bryan could be drafted for military service but can't have a drink, I'm in agreement, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[Sneakeater]

I think this thread is bringing up a sad facet of American life today-  class differences do really affect the subjective sense of applicability of the laws to various people. 

I think the sense of entitlement that Bryan's initial post displayed set this issue up to be a bit divisive based on one's class background or affinity.  I admit that I have no problem with folk of Bryan's age enjoying a glass of wine with dinner, and I was certainly doing it myself at that age and earlier (first in England legally, and then in NYC in the laxer pre-Giuliani days). 

Bryan's clearly a privileged kid with remarkably good taste for somebody his age... but he's not living in the real world if he thinks that alcohol laws don't apply to him, or that establishments might not actually face consequences if they get busted serving him.  While the customs and way of carrying themselves of most of the people doing the inspecting (also a class issue) might make them stick out like a sore thumb in a 3 star restaurant, that is not universal.  (Hell... I'd consider a career change if booze inspector carried an expense account to dine at places like EMP and Per SE.)

←

I knew somebody was going to say that.

It looks like a class issue. But OTOH, if you think the real-world implications of serving wine to minors eating with their parents in EMP and serving drinks to minors in TGIF aren't different, you're blinding yourself to reality.

Moreover, if you present it as a class issue, all you're doing is giving regulators an incentive to start enforcing the laws against high-end places, so as not to seem to be making class-based distinctions. Is that a result you deem desirable? Or would it be a complete waste of resources?

BTW, we're not talking here about anyone's "subjective" sense of applicability of the law to themselves. We're talking about the way the law is and always has been ACTUALLY applied. There's nothing "subjective" about it.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Also, about the not enforcing the law thing, picture the following scenario: Three kids eat at a restaurant, share a bottle of wine, drive off and hit some guy. That guy callas the cops, the cops realize the dirver is underage and has been drinking, so the guy, adviced by his lawyer, of course, goes after the restaurant. Unlikely? yes. Worth the risk? hmmm

←

This shows how NYC-centric this issue is (or originally was). Almost nobody drives to fine-dining restaurants in Manhattan. (At least nobody local [now this can devolve into another B&T discussion]. I wonder if Bryan did -- he was coming from New Jersey, as I recall.)

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[KatieLoeb]

BTW, we're not talking here about anyone's "subjective" sense of applicability of the law to themselves. We're talking about the way the law is and always has been ACTUALLY applied. There's nothing "subjective" about it.

Really?? Are you sure? Do we have any access to the files of the ABC? Do we have any statistics whatsoever about where the violations where the law was applied took place? Or are we just guessing because, well, we've either been served underage or had our underage children served at finer restaurants and now have the expectation that it should be thus?

[Sneakeater]

BTW, we're not talking here about anyone's "subjective" sense of applicability of the law to themselves. We're talking about the way the law is and always has been ACTUALLY applied. There's nothing "subjective" about it.

Really?? Are you sure? Do we have any access to the files of the ABC? Do we have any statistics whatsoever about where the violations where the law was applied took place? Or are we just guessing because, well, we've either been served underage or had our underage children served at finer restaurants and now have the expectation that is should be thus?

←

I think we're operating on the assumption that things tend to be pretty well-publicized here -- liquor license woes being an especially fruitful subject of gossip -- but this is something that none of us, with our various levels of conncectedness to the NYC dining industry, has heard about happening.

I think we're also, as you said, extrapolating from the fact that everyplace seems to be operating on the same set of assumptions. While that isn't determinative, it's highly suggestive.

(Moreover, just as a matter of words, if something always happens to you, I don't understand how your expectation of it is "subjective" rather than "objective.")

I recognize, Katie, that you know MUCH more about this stuff than I do -- and that your connections are infinitely better than mine. So if you know anything to the contrary of anything I've said, I'd bow to you in a minute.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[KatieLoeb]

I know nothing about the scene in NYC. And even if the latest raid at Hogs & Heifers makes Page 6 of the Daily News, I still stick by my premise that we have no real evidence here other than a generalised "feeling". We really don't know who has been cited or not, do we? And really isn't this more about someone getting their thong in a twist because their admittedly underage child was NOT served??

If and when I own my own restaurant, I assure you that even my underage niece and nephew and the underage children of the investors would not be allowed to drink on the premises. It's the law. Whether I agree with it or like it isn't the issue. I'd even work to change it. But the statues in effect are the ones I have to abide by. Bryan is clearly a young man with a sophisticated palate. He's still underage and it's the restaurant's call as to whether they wish to risk their licence over it. Period.

[Megan Blocker]

I believe we all are in agreement that the risk may be minimal.

Next question. Should we expect to be served no matter how minimal the risk and withhold gratutity from a server if he/she chooses not to?

←

Hope, not expect. Would I be surprised, in a place like EMP, if, say, my little brother was carded? Sure. But would I maintain that he should be served? Not on legal grounds. Would I make a fuss or feel that I had a right to be upset? Not really, though I'd probably be a bit frustrated (of course, I would feel better once I had MY wine - sorry, little bro).

While I agree with many here that the law is ridiculous, I recognize that it is, in fact, a law, and also understand the proprietor's right to decline to serve underage drinkers. The risk may be minimal, but it's still a risk, and the law may be dumb, but it's still a law, and whether or not they would like to break it is their choice, not mine. My gratuity in the situation would therefore depend on the server's handling of the delicate situation.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Megan Blocker (log)

[markk]

Indeed! I don't agree with the law either. I can't see any reason why a responsible young person falling a bit short of the legal drinking age, dining in a fine restaurant with a parent, shouldn't be allowed to have wine with his meal if it's okay with said parent. But we can't rule that laws don't have to be followed just because we don't agree with them, and I think that a liquor license isn't something that a restaurant should be asked to risk losing by breaking the law.

Still, I think they could have handled it much more diplomatically, at the very least by having a captain or manager come to the table and say something as simple and straightforward as "it appears that the young man may not be of legal drinking age, and if that's so, we're unfortunately not allowed to serve alcohol to him".

It's an unfortunate social and gastronomic situation, but you'd be surprised by how many people from how many different walks of life can each rationalize away the laws that they think are unfair and don't want to abide by. I think we're better of with laws than without them, and that we should work to change the ones we don't agree with, rather than expect people to break them for us when it exposes them to a risk.

I also think it's very unfortunate that Bryan was denied a fine wine with his meal.

[KatieLoeb]

I also think it's very unfortunate that Bryan was denied a fine wine with his meal.

I know! But sadly, it is what it is. In a very short time (his next birthday, in fact) Bryan will be able to order his wine on his own, and that ought to solve his dilemma.

I think your example of the appropriate thing for the manager to say is perfect. Diplomatic, gracious and to the point. Who could argue with that?

I'd be very curious if anyone amongst the ranks of eGulleteers knows anything about whether or not any of higher end restaurants in NYC have ever been cited for serving to underage guests. I'm curious because there's a definite economic incentive for them to do so. Think about it. If they decided only to turn away those guests at the door (or table) that were 19 or under they now have a whole new class of guests. Once word gets around the dorms at the local universities they start filling up a bit more. There's definitely big $$ to be made. Sure, by other folks here reckoning it's a very small risk, but is it worth losing their license over or having to shut down while the mess is sorted out? I still maintain it isn't.

[Sneakeater]

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.)

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

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.

[robert40]

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.

←

Is not the bottom line regardless if we agree or disagree or enforced or not?

The statute does not distinguish a difference in none of the above examples.

[Sneakeater]

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.

[Sneakeater]

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

[Sneakeater]

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.

[docsconz]

This discussion strikes me as somewhat similar to the restaurants in Chicago that still serve foie gras. Despite the law, many restaurants apperently still serve the verboten vittle and enforcement appears to be quite lax. Granted the potential penalties are much stiffer for those caught serving alcohol to those underage.

[robert40]

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

←

Umm.. Something like the Zodiac Killer did not get caught but Robert Chambers did.

[Sneakeater]

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

Edited January 3, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[robert40]

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

←

That it does.

[cdh]

Are you trying to tell me that you read no sense of entitlement in the original recounting of the story? We must be reading in different languages if that's that case.

I agree with everybody else here that the law is dumb, particularly as applied to NYC's automobile-less culture... but a law of general applicability still applies to everybody...

This is just one of many really dumb laws out there... somebody really should start a third party devoted to the review and repeal of laws that are already there... too many politicians run on the "do something" platform... not enough run on the "undo something" platform.

Edited January 3, 2007 by cdh (log)