The ABC Law prohibits from selling, serving, delivering or offering to patrons an unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price. The law also requires that licensees prohibit party organizers, promoters, etc., from engaging in this conduct in the licensees’ establishment. The statute also prohibits licensees from creating drink specials which, in the judgment of the Authority, are attempts to circumvent the law. This includes offerings of free drinks, or multiple drinks for free or for the price of a single drink, or for a low initial price followed by a price increment per hour or other period of time.

GENERAL RULE: Unlimited drinks or “All you can drink” specials are illegal in NY.

The SLA does allow 2 for 1, half price and other such specials where the price of a drink is not lower than one-half of the premise’s normal or regular price for the same drink. Section 117-a does not apply to private functions not opened to the public, such as weddings, banquets, or receptions, or other similar functions or to a package of food and beverages where the service of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the event or function. Most recently, a NY bar that violated this rule received a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 and a 15 day suspension of their liquor license.

A recent onslaught of lawsuits involving illegal tip sharing amongst restaurant employees is rocking the restaurant industry. These lawsuits are not new to the industry but they have recently increased in numbers as a result of a few recent, and very substantial, plaintiff/employee successes.

On April 4, 2008, in what will be the largest class action suit ever brought by New York restaurant employees, employees are suing Starbucks for violating a state law that prohibits management from receiving part of workers’ tips. At Starbucks, “shift supervisors” share the pooled tips with baristas, prompting a suit from a former barista, on behalf of at least 2,000 Starbucks baristas in NY who are allegedly owed over $5 million. The lawsuit comes on the heels of last month’s California ruling, where a state judge found Starbucks liable for $105 million, finding Starbucks illegally enabled shift supervisors to take a share of the tips.

GENERAL RULE: Restaurants in New York State are allowed to pay employees who receive tips as little as $5.00 — less than the federal minimum wage of $5.85 per hour and the New York State minimum wage of $7.15. However, To use this “tip credit”, amongst other things, employers are not permitted to share tips among “agents” of the employer.

This general rule seems straightforward, but it’s not. The law fails to define who constitutes an “agent” of an employer. An owner, officer of the corporation, or a general manager clearly fit this bill and cannot share in tips. But, what about a maitre‘d? a shift supervisor? or an assistant manager? The answer is . . .it depends on their job tasks and responsibilities – not their job title. The Department of Labor (DOL) has stated that an agent, “does not include a mere supervisory employee who does not have the authority to hire or fire.” And just because a maitre‘d has “supervisory” responsibilities over the rest of the dining room personnel does not necessarily mean that the maitre‘d cannot share in employee tips. The DOL will look at each situation on an individual basis, and pay particular attention to whether the maitre‘d (or another employee) “acts in the place of the owner”, by performing such functions as hiring and firing employees, or other managerial responsibilities such as disciplining and setting wages or work schedules.

In its defense, Starbucks argued in California court and again in New York that it’s shift supervisors are not managers (although they are in charge when managers are away and can evaluate baristas in performance reviews), because (i) the customers cannot differentiate between the shift supervisors and the baristas, (ii) the shift supervisors often do the same work as baristas including serving the customers, and (iii) the shift supervisors pay is only 22 cents more per hour. However, the California Court ruled that the tasks and responsibilities given to these “shift supervisors” did indeed make them “agents” of the employer and hence, they were prohibited from sharing in the tips.

Thus, the prohibition of sharing tips with an “agent” of an employer must be very carefully adhered to as the penalties can be severe. As in the Starbuck’s cases and many others, the definition of what constitutes an “agent” is presently being defined and redefined by the courts. If you are an employer and employ a Maitre’d, Assistant Manager, captain, or shift supervisor, play it safe, compensate them fairly – or even magnificently – but keep their hands out of the tip jar.

If you already have an on-Premise liquor license for your restaurant, you can serve food and liquor at an off-premise event as long as you receive a catering permit from the Liquor Authority for that event.�

GENERAL RULE: A Catering Permit authorizes a retail on-premise licensee to furnish alcoholic beverages for use at a specific function, occasion or event located off the licensed premise.

The fee for the permit is $48.00 per point of service/bar�and there are restrictions/rules. For example:
(i) the function must not be open to the general public,
(ii) the permit is valid only for twenty-four (24) consecutive hours beginning at 8:00 a.m. on its effective date,
(iii) the applicant must be hired to serve food, in addition to alcoholic beverages, at the event (pretzels and chips do not meet the minimum requirements for “food”),
(iv) the application must be received the NYSLA at least fifteen (15) days prior to the event,
(v) a separate permit is required for each point of sale, and
(vi) no game of bingo or other game of chance may be played.

A diagram of the area to be licensed must be attached to the application along with a menu of food and alcoholic beverages to be served at the event.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has targeted the restaurant industry as the “single largest” source of sexual harassment claims. With all the media attention on the subject lately, the number of sexual harassment cases filed each year against restaurants and their owners are escalating at an all too rapid pace. Restaurant owners must now take a pro-active stance to keep such complaints from damaging their operation. All employees, male and female, need to be formally informed as to what types of conduct are unlawful. Assuming that your managers and employees know how to behave without explicit guidelines could be your ticket to the courthouse. A series of Supreme Court decisions have defined what “sexual harassment” means. Those cases, and the interpretive guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), define two distinct types of sexual harassment:

• quid pro quo (a legal term meaning “this for that”), in which a supervisor demands sexual favors from an employee and threatens to fire the employee if the conditions are not met; and

• hostile environment, in which a supervisor or employee creates a work environment through verbal or physical conduct that interferes with another co-worker’s job performance or creates an intimidating work environment. A hostile environment is created when unwelcome sexual behavior is repeated. For example, an employee keeps telling off-color jokes after another staff member says they are offensive, or one employee keeps asking another employee for dates after being refused.

GENERAL RULE: An employer’s obligation with regard to sexual harassment arises before any act of harassment even occurs. As such, most lawyers practicing in this field strongly urge their employer-clients to distribute a clear and explicit sexual harassment prohibition policy and reporting procedure. Additionally, Anti-harassment training should occur on a regular basis which should educate managers and other employees as to what conduct is specifically prohibited (including a presentation of hypothetical harassment scenarios) and what to do if the employee believes they have been/are being harassed.

This policy and training is critical because under federal case law, an employer can fulfill its obligation if it takes all reasonable steps to prevent harassment before it occurs and takes effective steps to promptly remedy the harassment after it takes place. If these general principles are consistently and carefully applied, the employer can go a long way towards limiting its exposure and liability for sexual harassment.

Having a sidewalk café can greatly enhance the ambience of your restaurant, increase its revenues, and can have a number of other positive affects on your establishment.

The three types of sidewalk cafés are the: (i) enclosed café, (ii) unenclosed café, and (iii) small unenclosed café. Only restaurants on the ground floor are allowed to have cafes and design criteria for each type are based on the availability of free space on the sidewalk. Pedestrian traffic is a concern and there are specific measurements that must be met regarding distance from trees, parking meters, fire hydrants and other obstructions.

Regardless of the type of sidewalk café, (i) there must a minimum three foot “Service Aisle” for staff within the café, (ii) waiters are not permitted to serve diners from the public sidewalk, only from the designated wait service aisle, and (iii) all sidewalk cafes must maintain a minimum clear path of eight (8) feet between the outer limit of the café and any other object near the curb.

However, there are certain areas in New York City that are sidewalk café blackout zones where they simply are not permitted regardless of free sidewalk space, zoning, etc. If you are signing a lease with the intention to operate a sidewalk café at the premise, be sure to contact a qualified attorney or the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs Sidewalk Café Unit prior to signing that lease to ensure that you are not within one of these blackout zones and that the premise is otherwise suitable for such a license.

In the highly competitive restaurant industry, owners must take steps to protect their proprietary information, such as recipes, techniques, concepts and strategies from theft by former employees. Trade Secrets are any type of information that provides the owner of that information with a competitive advantage as a result of the information not being generally known and readily ascertainable by others.

GENERAL RULE: An owner should protect Trade Secrets with Confidentiality Agreements and take all measures necessary to keep such information secure from disclosure.

Employees who are involved with proprietary information, as well as managers and restaurant executives, should sign confidentiality agreements. In pertinent part, the confidentiality agreement should state the general information that is considered trade secret and should further state that any use or disclosure of this information, other than that specifically allowed by the employer, will be considered a breach of confidentiality and shall subject the employee to legal action and any damages.

As further protection, confidential documents containing recipes, concepts and techniques should be marked “Proprietary and Confidential Information; do not copy or distribute.”

Remind departing employees in writing of their continuing obligation to the confidentiality of the Trade Secrets of your company and have them return all manuals and documents they have in their possession when they leave your employment.

An experienced restaurant employment attorney can draft the appropriate confidentiality Agreement for your specific establishment and can develop a program for you to implement which will maximize your chances that such information will remain confidential and be classified as Trade Secret.

National Safety Council statistics establish that more people are injured in America in slip-and-fall situations than in any other accident scenario.

GENERAL RULE: The owner of a restaurant or bar where such injuries occur is not automatically legally responsible for the consequences of a slip and fall on his/her premises. Proof must be adduced by the plaintiff to establish that: (1) a dangerous condition was created or permitted by the defendant to remain for an unreasonably long time; and (2) the defendant had notice of its existence during such time and failed to take reasonable measures to remove it or to prevent the accident. If you have insurance coverage, notify your carrier immediately upon learning of the incident.

As such, the mere occurrence of the injury does not suffice to impute liability to the restaurant owner. Rather, recent cases have alerted plaintiff’s counsel that in order to prevail in their slip and fall cases, they must prove the specific instrumentality causing the fall, the location and causation of the accident, and specifics of the time frame when the hazard was created; it must also be proven that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of its existence (i.e. that they knew or had reason to know of it). Regardless of the difficulty in successfully bringing forth a slip and fall case, restaurant owners are strongly advised to have this contingency covered via careful periodic inspections of the premises and an insurance policy encompassing this type of liability. The increased insurance premium will be nominal compared to the damages that can, and have been, awarded to successful slip and fall plaintiffs.

Have you ever received a poor review for your restaurant and then contemplated suing the restaurant critic and/or publication that published it? Don’t bother. Review of the results of such litigation indicates that you would be wasting your time and money.

Libel is the publication of a false statement of fact. Opinion, however, regardless of how negative or damaging it may be, is protected and not considered libelous. Restaurant reviews have been consistently deemed “opinion” by New York courts and as such, the courts have consistently decided such cases in favor of the critics. For example, over the course of the past 20 years, restaurateurs have unsuccessfully sued over the following reviews: “Trout à la green plague”, “The fish tasted like old ski boots”, “Duck pancakes the size of a saucer and the thickness of a finger”, and “Bring a can of Raid if you plan to eat here.”

GENERAL RULE: If you receive a poor review, don’t file a legal action over it. Established case precedent dictates that you won’t win the case and even worse, the negative review will be republished (perhaps repeatedly) as a result of your legal action.

Rather than resorting to legal action, some established restaurateurs such as Harry Cipriani and Jeffrey Chodorow have retaliated against negative reviews by placing expensive full page ads called “open letters” denouncing the critic and the critic’s review and qualifications. While this avenue may be personally satisfying and even deserved, I don’t believe it has any redeeming business value. Besides being terribly expensive (a full page in the New York Times costs upwards of $84,000.00), it only serves to republish the negative review and keep it in the minds of potential patrons and public for a longer period of time.

The New York City Mayor’s Office published a terrific guide that should be read by all indiviudals that own, or plan to own, a restaurant in NYC.   Its a terrific resource for the basics of NY restaurant ownership.  Here’s the link to the guide:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/2737nycrestaurantguide-81606.pdf

When applying for a liquor license, the application of the “500 foot rule” often results in the application being rejected. It is imperative that an applicant know whether the rule will apply to their license application and, if it does, to prepare accordingly.

GENERAL RULE: No license for on-premises liquor consumption may be granted for any premise within 500 feet of three or more existing premises licensed and operating with an on-premises liquor license. BUT the State Liquor Authority, in it’s discretion, may still issue the license if they determine that the license would be “in the public interest” after consulting with the local Community Board and holding a public hearing upon notice (a/k/a The 500 Foot Hearing).

Factors the Liquor Authority consider relevant when determining if the license would be “in the public interest” include the type of the proposed establishment (i.e., restaurant or bar), and the number, classes and types of businesses licensed within 500 feet of the proposed premise. They also consider whether the applicant has had prior violations or complaints at other establishments and quality of life issues such as anticipated increased traffic, potential parking problems and noise issues.

The 500 foot hearing is held at the Liquor Authority and individuals and community groups may appear to challenge the granting of a license. A consultation with an experienced liquor license attorney is highly recommended prior to attending this hearing. But in general, wear a suit and be prepared to answer any and all questions regarding your proposed establishment. Bring a copy of your completed liquor license application with you along with all supporting documents filed therewith.

NOTE: The 500 Foot Rule is not applicable if the premises has been continuously licensed on or prior to November 1, 1993 or if the County has a population of less than 20,000.