In a recent ruling, the New York Supreme Court denied a petition from We Love to Drink LLC, a wine shop in Brooklyn, against the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA). The court's decision, delivered on April 27, 2026, addresses the issue of whether the SLA had a legal obligation to respond to a letter from We Love to Drink LLC regarding a competing liquor store's license. This ruling impacts local businesses and their ability to contest liquor licenses granted to competitors.
We Love to Drink LLC claimed that the SLA improperly granted a retail liquor license to Kent Wines & Liquors Inc., a nearby competitor. The petitioner argued that Kent Wines failed to inform the SLA about We Love to Drink LLC's existence during its license application process. As a result, We Love to Drink LLC did not have the opportunity to oppose the application, which they believe has led to a significant decline in their sales.
The dispute began when We Love to Drink LLC sought to persuade the SLA to reconsider Kent Wines's liquor license. In October 2025, the petitioner sent a letter to the SLA, requesting that it initiate a proceeding to revoke Kent Wines's license under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (ABCL). However, the SLA did not act on this request, prompting We Love to Drink LLC to file a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the SLA to respond.
The court ruling, indexed under docket number 150006/2026, was presided over by Judge Gerald Lebovits. In the decision, the court found that the SLA did not have a nondiscretionary duty to respond to We Love to Drink LLC's letter within 30 days, as claimed by the petitioner. The court stated, "The SLA does not have such an obligation," and determined that the October 2025 letter did not qualify as an 'application' under ABCL § 120.
Judge Lebovits explained that the term 'application' is not defined in the ABCL and is typically used to refer to formal requests made by regulated parties for relief pertaining to themselves. The court noted that the SLA's interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference, but the agency's argument was based on general principles of statutory interpretation rather than an established meaning of 'application.' The judge emphasized that the petitioner’s letter was not a formal application and thus did not trigger the 30-day response requirement.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that ABCL § 119 (2), which discusses complaints regarding license revocation, does not classify such requests as 'applications.' Instead, it refers to them as 'complaints,' which gives the SLA discretion over whether to act on them. Therefore, the court concluded that the SLA was not required to respond to We Love to Drink LLC's letter within a strict timeframe.
The court's decision has significant implications for We Love to Drink LLC and other businesses in similar positions. It clarifies that liquor license disputes may not always lead to a mandated response from the SLA, particularly when the request does not meet the criteria set forth in the ABCL. This ruling may affect how businesses approach the SLA when contesting licenses granted to competitors and could limit their ability to challenge such decisions effectively.
Moving forward, businesses seeking to contest liquor licenses may need to reassess their strategies and understand the limitations of the SLA's obligations. The ruling suggests that formal applications may be necessary to prompt timely responses from the agency. This could lead to increased scrutiny of how businesses communicate with the SLA and the types of requests they submit.
As for We Love to Drink LLC, the court's ruling may not be the end of their legal battle. While the court denied their request for a writ of mandamus to compel the SLA to respond to their letter, the petitioner could potentially explore other legal avenues or appeal the decision. However, details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.