AC47941 - Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC v. Dept. of
Consumer Protection, Liquor Control Commission ("General Statutes § 30-94 (a) and § 30-6- A29 (a) of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies prohibit a licensed permittee, in any
transaction with another permittee, from receiving any free goods, gratuities,
gifts ‘or other inducements’ in connection with the sale of alcoholic
beverages. The plaintiffs, Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC
(Connecticut Fine Wine), and its representative owner, David J. Trone, appeal
from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ administrative
appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Department of Consumer
Protection, Liquor Control Commission (commission), concluding that the
plaintiffs violated those provisions by receiving an improper inducement in the
form of free labor, namely, the shelf stocking of newly delivered beer at the
plaintiffs’ two retail liquor stores by employees of the two wholesale beer
distributors who supplied the beer to the stores. On appeal to this court, the
plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) substantial
evidence supports the commission’s finding that the beer distributors’
employees provided the plaintiffs with free labor by stocking the shelves of
the plaintiffs’ stores, and (2) even if the evidence supports a finding that
the distributors’ employees engaged in shelf stocking at the plaintiffs’
stores, such free labor is not a prohibited inducement under § 30-94 (a) and §
30-6- A29 (a) of the regulations without proof that the stocking was done
pursuant to an agreement between the distributors and the stores that the
distributors would provide such free labor to the stores. We agree with the
trial court that the evidence supports the commission’s finding that the
distributors’ employees were stocking beer on the shelves of the plaintiffs’
stores. With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim that such stocking, even if
proven, is not, without more, a prohibited inducement, we decline to review
that claim because the plaintiffs failed to raise it before the commission. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
AC47683 - Bowens v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act - (“The board affirmed the decision of the referee at the
Employment Security Appeals Division (referee) denying, as untimely, the
plaintiff’s motion to open the referee’s decision dismissing, as untimely, her
appeal from the defendant’s decision determining that she was ineligible for
unemployment benefits. In the administrative appeal, the Superior Court
remanded the matter for reconsideration of the referee’s denial of the
plaintiff’s motion to open. On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that
the Superior Court exceeded its limited scope of judicial review in making
factual findings and in substituting its judgment for that of the board, which,
the defendant maintains, properly affirmed the referee’s denial of the
plaintiff’s motion to open. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of
the Superior Court.”)