State revokes license for downtown liquor store for multiple violations

Posted at 4:53 PM, Jan 23, 2019
and last updated 2019-01-23 16:54:12-05

LANSING, Mich. – The Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) has revoked the liquor license of a downtown liquor store and released more information on the violations that led to the penalties.

Tuesday, the board revoked the license and permits held by Payal and Ella LLC, who operated Lucky’s Downtown Market at 24 S. Division in downtown Grand Rapids.

The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs says that Lucky’s had seven violations of selling alcohol to minors and selling alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons in a period from August 2017 and July 2018.  State law says the MLCC is required to suspend or revoke a liquor license if a business commits three such violations over two years.

The MLCC says that Lucky’s sold to minors who were 20-years-old on August 10, 2017 and June 6, 2018. On five other occasions, the clerk on duty sold to intoxicated customers.

Grand Rapids Police told the commission that on June 14, 2018, they arrested a man assaulting a woman just a few blocks from Lucky’s. The man was holding a bottle of unopened liquor that he had just purchased at Lucky’s. They say the man was visibly intoxicated and registered a .217 in a preliminary breath test.

In another instance, police say they spotted a woman walking down the middle of Division Avenue after purchasing alcohol at Lucky’s. When she was asked why she was in the street, she told police she was drunk. Police say that she registered a .212 on a preliminary breath test.

The MLCC says that during the hearing on Tuesday, the owners of Lucky’s did not show they were working to fix the problems at their business.

“The licensee has shown a pattern of indifference to the real dangers of selling alcohol to minors and visibly intoxicated individuals,” said MLCC Chairman Andy Deloney in a press release. “The licensee failed to demonstrate any policies and procedures that would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public; the Commission decided that revocation was the proper course of action to take.”