Irem Temple AAONMS v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
87 A.3d 983
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Irem Temple AAONMS and Saitta appealed the Board’s Feb. 14, 2013 order approving Acacia’s restaurant liquor license transfer and the Feb. 14, 2013 de-licensing notification; trial court quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Board found no charitable-institution within 300 feet and approved the transfer and interior-connection; de-licensing of Irem Temple’s overlapping areas followed from the approval.
- Irem Temple’s protests and petitions to intervene were adjudicated; the Board denied intervention petitions.
- Irem Temple argued standing under Liquor Code §464 as a charitable institution or within 300 feet, and Saitta argued as an inhabitant within 500 feet; trial court treated them as lacking standing.
- This Court assumed jurisdiction over Irem Temple’s direct appeal under the Administrative Agency Law Section 702, held the Board’s de-licensing did not constitute a separate appealable adjudication, and affirmed the Board’s order while dismissing as moot the remaining trial court appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over the Board order lies where? | Irem Temple/Saitta argued standing under §464 or 500‑ft inhabitant. | §464-exclusive review in common pleas; lacks standing for Irem Temple/Saitta. | Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction; de‑licensing not a separate adjudication; direct AAL appeal viable. |
| Did the Board abuse discretion in approving Acacia transfer? | Transfer would be detrimental due to ongoing lease/possession disputes. | Board properly exercised discretion under §404; no compelling reason to deny. | No abuse; transfer approved as not detrimental to neighborhood; disputes about property rights were irrelevant. |
| Was de-licensing of Irem Temple’s license legal without notice/hearing? | De-licensing violated due process as a separate adjudication. | De-licensing was a consequence of the transfer and not a separate adjudication. | Not a separate adjudication; integration with transfer; due process not violated. |
| Was the 500‑ft inhabitant standing rule applicable to Irem Temple/Saitta? | Irem Temple/Saitta are within 500 feet or are charitable/inhabitant. | Irem Temple not charitable/inhabitant; lacks standing under §464; Saitta unrelated. | Grounds under §464 not satisfied; but Court can review direct appeal under AAL; standing analyzed for purpose of transfer review. |
| What is the proper disposition of the trial court appeals? | Appeals from the Board affirmed; appeals challenging de-licensing dismissed as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittaulis, 444 Pa. 243 (1971) (board cannot deny transfer based on lease restrictions involving property rights; police power standard)
- Court House Motor Inn, Inc., 318 A.2d 383 (Pa.Cmwlth.1974) (enforcement of land-use restrictions by an admin agency is inappropriate; court review preferred)
- Tacony Civic Ass’n v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 668 A.2d 584 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995) (deference to board; deed restrictions not proper grounds to deny license)
- West Reading Tavern, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 710 A.2d 648 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (standing to appeal must be in proper class; proximity alone not enough)
- Two Sophia's Inc., 799 A.2d 917 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (de novo review allows independent factfinding but not free from record constraints)