New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2026)

Prohibited sales

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 65. Prohibited sales. No person shall sell, deliver or give away or
cause or permit or procure to be sold, delivered or given away any
alcoholic beverages to
  1. Any person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one
years;
  2. Any visibly intoxicated person;
  3. Any habitual drunkard known to be such to the person authorized to
dispense any alcoholic beverages.
  4. Neither such person so refusing to sell or deliver under this
section nor his or her employer shall be liable in any civil or criminal
action or for any fine or penalty based upon such refusal, except that
such sale or delivery shall not be refused, withheld from or denied to
any person on account of race, creed, color or national origin.
  5. The provisions of subdivision one of this section shall not apply
to a person who gives or causes to be given any such alcoholic beverage
to a person under the age of twenty-one years, who is a student in a
curriculum licensed or registered by the state education department and
is required to taste or imbibe alcoholic beverages in courses which are
part of the required curriculum, provided such alcoholic beverages are
used only for instructional purposes during on-campus or off-campus
courses conducted pursuant to such curriculum.
  6. In any proceeding pursuant to section one hundred eighteen of this
chapter to revoke, cancel or suspend a license to sell alcoholic
beverages, in which proceeding it is alleged that a person violated
subdivision one of this section;
  (a) it shall be an affirmative defense that such person had produced a
photographic identification card apparently issued by a governmental
entity and that the alcoholic beverage had been sold, delivered or given
to such person in reasonable reliance upon such identification. In
evaluating the applicability of such affirmative defense, the authority
shall take into consideration any written policy adopted and implemented
by the seller to carry out the provisions of paragraph (b) of
subdivision two of section sixty-five-b of this article; and
  (b) it shall be an affirmative defense that at the time of such
violation such person who committed such alleged violation held a valid
certificate of completion or renewal from an entity authorized to give
and administer an alcohol training awareness program pursuant to
subdivision twelve of section seventeen of this chapter. Such licensee
shall have diligently implemented and complied with all of the
provisions of the approved training program. In such proceeding to
revoke, cancel or suspend a license pursuant to section one hundred
eighteen of this chapter, the licensee must prove each element of such
affirmative defense by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
Evidence of three unlawful sales of alcoholic beverages by any employee
of a licensee to persons under twenty-one years of age, within a two
year period, shall be considered by the authority in determining whether
the licensee had diligently implemented such an approved program.
  7. In any proceeding pursuant to section one hundred eighteen of this
chapter to revoke, cancel or suspend a license to sell alcoholic
beverages, in which proceeding a charge is sustained that a person
violated subdivision one or two of this section and the licensee has not
had any adjudicated violation of this chapter at the licensed premises
where the violation occurred within the previous five year period; and
  (a) at the time of such violation the person that committed such
violation held a valid certificate of completion or renewal from an
entity authorized to give and administer an alcohol training awareness
program pursuant to subdivision twelve of section seventeen of this
chapter, the civil penalty related to such offense shall be recovery of,
as provided for in section one hundred twelve of this chapter, the penal
sum of the bond on file during the period in which the violation took
place; or
  (b) at the time of such violation the licensee has not had any
adjudicated violations of this chapter at the licensed premises where
the violation occurred within the previous five year period, any civil
penalty imposed shall be reduced by twenty-five percent if the licensee
submits written proof, within ninety days of the imposition of such
civil penalty, that all of the licensee's employees involved in the
direct sale or service of alcoholic beverages to the public at the
licensed premises where the violation occurred have obtained a valid
certificate of completion or renewal from an entity authorized to give
and administer an alcohol training awareness program pursuant to
subdivision twelve of section seventeen of this chapter.
  For the purposes of this subdivision, the five year period shall be
measured from the dates that the violations occurred.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 251 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case: Sullivan v. Mulinos of Westchester, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sullivan v. Mulinos of Westchester, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 7× “, Jimmy Cavagna, Louis Pipolo, and Ha Rugova appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J), entered September 24, 2009, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to…”

Café La China Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 43 A.D.3d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 3× “Determination of respondent, dated July 11, 2005, which, after an evidentiary hearing, sustained two charges of violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2), and imposed a $3,000 civil penalty or, in the event of noncompliance, a 20-day suspension plus $1,000 bond…”

Parslow v. Leake, 117 A.D.3d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 5× “The court dismissed the fifth cause of action, alleging violations of General Obligations Law § 11-100 and Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65, insofar as it was asserted against Schneider.”

People v. Byrne, 570 N.E.2d 1066 (NY 1991). · cites it 5× “Defendant and Thomas Byrne were both charged with violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) by "sell[ing] or causing] or permitting] to be sold alcoholic beverages, to wit; beer to [a] person * * * being actually or apparently under the age of nineteen years.”

Romano v. Stanley, 684 N.E.2d 19 (NY 1997). · cites it 2× “for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them?” Plaintiffs’ Dram Shop Act cause of action against defendants rests on the premise that they "unlawfully” sold alcoholic beverages to Stanley, a "visibly intoxicated person,” in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control…”

Powers v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 129 A.D.2d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 5× “Supreme Court construed the underscored phrase as restricting the statute’s application to instances where the sale is made to an intoxicated person or a person actually or apparently under the influence of alcohol *40 (see, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [former (2)]).”

O'Gara v. Alacci, 67 A.D.3d 54 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “In this regard, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law makes it illegal for sellers of alcohol such as the third-party defendants to sell alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person (see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), and the Dram Shop Act provides “[a]ny person” who has been…”

Matter of Mario Enters., Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 08146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 8× “1 [q]), pattern of misconduct ( see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 118 [1], [3]) and 100 charges of unlawfully providing alcohol to an individual under the age of 21 ( see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [1]).”

Henry-Lee v. City of New York, 746 F. Supp. 2d 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “Specifically, plaintiff cites New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.”

25-24 Café Concerto Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 65 A.D.3d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 5× “) In any event, we conclude that respondent’s findings that petitioner sold alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and thus failed to exercise adequate supervision over the conduct of the licensed business in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.”

Sheehy v. Big Flats Cmty. Day, Inc., 541 N.E.2d 18 (NY 1989). “At the time of the incident the legal age for purchasing alcoholic beverages in New York was 19 (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [former (1)], as amended by L 1982, ch 159, §D.”

S & R Lake Lounge, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 661 N.E.2d 1355 (NY 1995). · cites it 4× “The question presented is whether respondent’s determination that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) was supported by substantial evidence given the circumstantial proof in the record.”

Show all 251 citing cases →

— N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1) — 2 cases

Matter of 151st St. Disc. Liquors, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 07265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).

— N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(2) — 2 cases

Hirsch v. Solares, 2018 NY Slip Op 7828 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).

Flynn v. Bulldogs Run Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 3028 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.