## Facts

- 1616 Second Avenue Restaurant, Inc. operated a Manhattan restaurant and bar (Dorrian’s Red Hand) licensed since 1962 to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption.
- After intense publicity in 1986, the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) and police closely monitored the premises for Alcoholic Beverage Control Law violations, including underage service.
- The SLA charged the licensee with violating ABC Law § 65(1) by selling or giving alcohol to four underage patrons on dates in November 1986.
- Following an administrative hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained two of the four charges.
- The matter proceeded to the SLA’s five-member Commission, including its Chairman, Thomas Duffy, for review and penalty.
- While the case was pending before the Commission, Duffy testified before a state senate committee about underage drinking and made statements about Dorrian’s that indicated the SLA was building a record against it regarding service to minors.
- The licensee requested Duffy’s recusal on the ground that his public comments showed prejudgment of disputed facts; Duffy refused.
- The Commission affirmed the two violations, imposed a 10-day license suspension, and claimed the licensee’s $1,000 bond.

## Issues

1. Whether public statements by the SLA Chairman concerning factual matters in a pending administrative adjudication disqualified him from participating in the agency’s review.
2. Whether the Chairman’s refusal to recuse deprived the licensee of due process under the Federal Constitution, requiring annulment of the agency determination.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s confirmation of the SLA determination.
- The court held that the Chairman’s public statements indicated prejudgment of facts at issue in the pending proceeding.
- The court concluded that the Chairman’s participation, after refusing recusal, denied the licensee federal due process.
- The SLA determination was annulled and the matter remitted to the SLA for a new determination without the Chairman’s participation.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires an impartial decision-maker in administrative adjudications deciding specific rights and obligations on an evidentiary record.
- The combination of investigative, policy, and adjudicative functions within an agency does not alone violate due process.
- An agency adjudicator may hold and express general policy views, but may not publicly indicate a settled conclusion on adjudicative facts in a specific pending case.
- Public comments reflecting factual prejudgment in a pending matter create an unconstitutional risk of bias and require disqualification to preserve fairness.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the SLA Chairman’s public testimony about a licensee’s pending case signaled factual prejudgment, requiring recusal; his refusal to step aside tainted the agency’s review and violated federal due process, so the suspension and bond forfeiture were annulled and the case was remitted for reconsideration by an impartial decision-maker.


In re 1616 Second Avenue Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 75 N.Y.2d 158 (1990)