Police: Bars ignore court order

By Sara Ganim

- sganim@centredaily.com

An embattled State College bar was found not to have made the changes that a court ordered as a condition of it staying open while it appeals the loss of its liquor license, state police said.

CDT file photo/Christopher Weddle

Tony’s Big Easy, Lulu’s Nightspot, and the Candy Bar and Lounge, all at 129 1/2 S. Pugh St. CDT file photo/Christopher Weddle

View larger

Tony’s Big Easy, Lulu’s Nightspot, and the Candy Bar and Lounge, all at 1291/2 S. Pugh St., are owned by Sammark Inc. and share a liquor license. The state Liquor Control Board decided last summer not to renew that license, citing violations that include offering an unlimited amount of alcohol for a set price and allowing minors to frequent the establishments. The board also noted at least three disturbances at or near the establishments, including a fatal stabbing in 2006.

After Centre County President Judge David E. Grine upheld the board’s decision, Sammark, headed by President Tony Sapia, appealed to a higher court.

But now Tony’s Big Easy has again been cited by the state police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement.

Police said they found on seven different occasions that the bar wasn’t complying with terms Grine put in place in March that allowed the bars to stay open until the appeal is decided.

“It didn’t appear to us that (Sapia) was even making an effort to comply with the provisions of the court order,” said district office commander Sgt. Wayne A. Bush.

Some of those provisions include: using metal detecting wands and scan devices on ID cards; installing security cameras and lights near the exits; staggering the closings of the three establishments by a half-hour; and ending drink discounts at 9 p.m. and catered events to students at midnight.

When the bureau checked on Tony’s Big Easy on April 10, 16, 17 and 18 and May 9, 20 and 24, those changes had not been made.

They also cited the bar for, on two occasions, serving alcohol to an intoxicated man in violation of liquor code.

“It was like, ‘OK, maybe it was just this night,’ ” Bush said, “No, it was pretty much the same every time we had people up there.”

Sammark’s attorney, Francis X. O’Brien, couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday. He has said after previous court hearings that Sammark’s bars are run responsibly, but have had incidents of bad luck. He also noted in March that the bars had not been cited with any liquor code violations in the past three years.

An LCB spokeswoman says the latest citations won’t immediately affect Sammark’s appeal because the new charges have to first go before an administrative law judge and be proven.

“It usually takes a couple of months for those citations to work through the system,” said spokeswoman Francesca Chapman. By then, the appeal of the liquor license issue could be decided.

Chapman said the LCB can’t go back to Grine and ask him to shut the bars down because the case has already moved to a higher court.

“Earlier in the spring, our attorneys went to the Commonwealth Court and asked if, with some new information from these citations and some earlier accumulated incidences, and asked the judge to consider that Sammark was in violation of (Grine’s) order,” Chapman said. “Essentially the judge said, ‘No.’ ”

The judge did agree to expedite the appeals process, however, Chapman said.

The LCB is hoping that will mean a ruling before the school year begins in the fall.

If Sammark is successful in its appeal, and the LCB is forced to renew its license, Chapman said the agency will use these latest citations as reason not to renew Sammark’s license again next year.