Enforcing Alcohol Law: NYC Fine Dining Restaurants

[Nathan]

"But, were I the proprietor of (for example) some college-type joint and I knew that the laws were never enforced in upscale places, and that it was assumed by the Platimum Card Crowd that their kids didn't have to play by the rules, I'd be plenty pissed. And I'd call someone."

in NY, their kids would be hanging out in your joint anyway. no point in rocking the boat.

[Fat Guy]

There are people out there who make it their mission in life to fight underage drinking. Plenty of these people are well-to-do and dine in restaurants like Eleven Madison Park. If one of them sees an obviously underage drinker, you can be sure that's getting reported to ABC, and once that report goes in it will most likely be followed up because ABC would like nothing more than to take down a super-high-profile restaurateur like Danny Meyer.

There are also a lot of government officials, including people in law enforcement, dining in places like EMP. While most of them will turn a blind eye to a little underage drinking in a nice restaurant, all it takes is one who doesn't and then you have a disaster: fines, media embarrassment, insurance premiums raised, possible suspension of the liquor license -- no server should take that risk on a restaurant's behalf. I've even seen the NYPD commissioner at EMP. If you're pouring wine for an underage customer at the next table, you're putting the commissioner in an awkward position.

I did my fair share of underage drinking, and I wholeheartedly concur that a law that says a 20-year-old can't enjoy a glass of wine at EMP is too stupid to deserve to be called a law. But that's not the point. That most servers at high-end restaurants are reckless enough to serve underage customers is equally beside the point.

[Pan]

[...]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)?

←

How about because they could get a lot of publicity for busting a high-end restaurant? I'm sure you can imagine the New York Post and Daily News headlines.

←

Yes, and it would be extraordinarily negative publicity. Whoever was responsible for the decision to send an undercover, underage cop, and a second officer posing as his mother, into EMP, spend $300 of taxpayer money for a couple tasting menus and a bottle of wine, and then shut down a New York Times three star restaurant for serving alcohol to an accompanied 20-year old, would be pilloried in the press and most likely forced to resign.[...]

←

The argument would be that the law applies to the rich as to the poor. I'm not sure that someone making that kind of populist (or faux-populist) argument would be forced to resign.

[Nathan]

just cause they spot someone who looks like they might be underage (we're not talking about 14 year olds here) doesn't mean that the restaurant gets cited:

either a. the police would have to organize a sting (I simply can't conceive of this being likely) or b. officers would have to be summoned on the spot -- to ID the kid -- in front of his/her parents -- and then arrest the kid and the bartender. and considering the possibility that they were wrong and the kid turns out to be 21 -- causing massive embarassment and considering the possiblity that the kid's parents could be influential themselves, that's a big risk to take.

this is where the class issue really does come into play.

there's a reason why this scenario hasn't happened.

[Nathan]

"The argument would be that the law applies to the rich as to the poor. I'm not sure that someone making that kind of populist (or faux-populist) argument would be forced to resign."

considering the waste of tax-payer resources to go after a fine-dining establishment that probably has at most one under-age wine-drinker a week while we have 18 year old Jersey girls getting hammered at Chelsea clubs and then murdered....yeah, it would look like questionable priorities.

[robert40]

There are people out there who make it their mission in life to fight underage drinking. Plenty of these people are well-to-do and dine in restaurants like Eleven Madison Park. If one of them sees an obviously underage drinker, you can be sure that's getting reported to ABC, and once that report goes in it will most likely be followed up because ABC would like nothing more than to take down a super-high-profile restaurateur like Danny Meyer.

There are also a lot of government officials, including people in law enforcement, dining in places like EMP. While most of them will turn a blind eye to a little underage drinking in a nice restaurant, all it takes is one who doesn't and then you have a disaster: fines, media embarrassment, insurance premiums raised, possible suspension of the liquor license -- no server should take that risk on a restaurant's behalf. I've even seen the NYPD commissioner at EMP. If you're pouring wine for an underage customer at the next table, you're putting the commissioner in an awkward position.

I did my fair share of underage drinking, and I wholeheartedly concur that a law that says a 20-year-old can't enjoy a glass of wine at EMP is too stupid to deserve to be called a law. But that's not the point. That most servers at high-end restaurants are reckless enough to serve underage customers is equally beside the point.

←

Thank you! Like I said up thread. The notion that no one is paying attention or raids, stings or whatever are slim is beside the fact. Just one hard ass sitting at the next table is all it takes. Personally the server refused to gamble on his job and I commend him. If anything this is another sign that EMP is striving to be the best they can and are taking their work very seriously.

[Pan]

"The argument would be that the law applies to the rich as to the poor. I'm not sure that someone making that kind of populist (or faux-populist) argument would be forced to resign."

considering the waste of tax-payer resources to go after a fine-dining establishment that probably has at most one under-age wine-drinker a week while we have 18 year old Jersey girls getting hammered at Chelsea clubs and then murdered....yeah, it would look like questionable priorities.

←

Again, it depends how it's presented. Don't you think many New Yorkers would be unsympathetic to people who can spend $200 on dinner?

[Nathan]

considering that 25% of Manhattan households make six figures or higher....and they make up a much larger proportion of the people who actually read the papers and are involved politically.....

I can't prove the above stat per se -- I was once involved in a discussion about Manhattan incomes...I pulled the U.S. census stats by zipcode and was able to come up with that figure as being roughly accurate....

put differently, there is a fantastically large number of people spending 150-250 on dinner any given night in the city.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[H. du Bois]

I wouldn't presume that either New York City or its upper echelon restaurants are immune to enforcement of the law, precisely because of the high-profile status of its restaurants. A zealot with an agenda could get a lot of airplay in the rest of the country for bringing down a chic restaurant or two in this town.

We weren't immune from Prohibition, we weren't immune from the smoking ban. And we aren't immune from New York State law, despite the fact that culturally, we might differ significantly from the rest of the state (and country).

I vote that we secede (or that all of Manhattan island be declared U.N. property - they can smoke and drink as they wish in that building).

[Nathan]

"I wouldn't presume that either New York City or its upper echelon restaurants are immune to enforcement of the law, precisely because of the high-profile status of its restaurants. A zealot with an agenda could get a lot of airplay in the rest of the country for bringing down a chic restaurant or two in this town."

you mean the way Chicago was made a mockery of?

nobody would give it airplay...huh? it would take a lot more than one violation to shut down Per Se. the first time a fine dining establishment was cited would be the last time they didn't all start carding.

it simply wouldn't be news outside of NY. I find that sometimes NY'ers have a vastly enlarged sense of their importance to the rest of the country.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Pan]

I've read that Prohibition was not aggressively enforced in New York City, but that's probably off-topic for 2007.

[Nathan]

there were more bars in NYC after Prohibition began than before it started...

(maybe this was the beginning of B&T weekend traffic? )

Edited January 4, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[hacheson]

okee dokey... Am I speed reading this right? The aghast consensus seems to be that these little laws don't apply to 'dem fancee resteerants. huh?

Look, I don't know about you big city folk but here in college town Georgia we follow those laws or we lose our license. Waiter gets a $500 fine I get a $5000 fine... second fine is 7 day closure. 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.

I also have a line on my menu that says "If you look under 30 you know you need ID"

[Nathan]

"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.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[hacheson]

oh, and stings happen all the time. We got cited five years ago for selling a Miller Lite to an underage operative for the Athens Police. I argued that Miller Lite is more akin to water than booze but still got fined.

[Sneakeater]

My mommy hasn't been anywhere where she could buy me a drink for years. And I'd be flattered if you'd card me.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[robert40]

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.

Which I believe I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion.

[Sneakeater]

Robert, what do you expect them to tell you if you ask them?

[Nathan]

"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.

[robert40]

Robert, what do you expect them to tell you if you ask them?

←

Yes! How could I be so naive? I should have expected management stating the facts like... Were trying to squeeze every $90 bottle of wine we can. Sure no one is looking because this is NY and you know we have to compensate for those extra tables we pulled out. Plus with chef getting all this publicity lately he's demanding a pretty penny. Not to mention overtime with all the staff turnover. Etc. Etc.

How dare I be so unrealistic.

[Sneakeater]

No offense, but if you think any of that has anything to do with anything I or anyone else has been saying in this thread, you've misunderstood us. If I've been unclear, I apologize (although even if I have, I don't think Sam has). But it would be an abuse of this forum for me to repeat what I've already repeated too much.

[Nathan]

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.

[Sneakeater]

OK, I can't help myself:

No one has said that fine-dining restaurants are making a profit center of selling wine to minors. It's more an incidental service to their parents. Indeed, it's precisely because the restaurants are not seeking to turn this into a profit center that they've been permitted to do it. It's not a frequent thing, it's not a big thing, and it's not something they've been open to letting people take advantage of. They're NOT trying to turn themselves into underage watering holes, and they haven't done so.

They've also been permitted to do it because they do it DISCREETLY.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Daniel]

Robert, what do you expect them to tell you if you ask them?

←

Sure no one is looking because this is NY:

←

I just think one shouldnt wash over this fact without taking this fact into consideration..

Edited January 4, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[robert40]

No offense, but if you think any of that has anything to do with anything I or anyone else has been saying in this thread, you've misunderstood us.  If I've been unclear, I apologize (although even if I have, I don't think Sam has).  But it would be an abuse of this forum for me to repeat what I've already repeated too much.

←

If I recall correctly the base of the discussion was high end restaurants do not acknowledge the drinking age in New York and the server was faulted for doing so.

Any other discussion that grew from the original topic is icing on the cake in my opinion.