Latest news with #NewYorkStateLiquorAuthority
New York Times
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Times
I Scream, You Scream. They Don't Scream for Ice Cream.
The Museum of Ice Cream is a sugarcoated daydream — or nightmare, depending on your tastes. The location in SoHo opened in 2019, spawning out of a temporary pop-up three years earlier that reportedly had a 200,000-person wait-list. It's less of a museum than it is a made-for-Instagram selfie emporium. You won't find much on display to spark any philosophical thoughts — what is there to say about the ephemeral nature of ice cream, or how about its role as a symbol of pure hedonism? You will instead find a banana jungle, a spiral slide, unlimited scoops of Fruiti Cereal Swirl and Ess-a-Bagel ice cream sandwiches. 'Ready To Rediscover Your Inner Child?' the museum prominently asks on its website. But in the depths of the museum's sprinkle pool, a feud has been brewing. The inner child belongs to adults, and the Museum of Ice Cream wants to cater to them. Though 'pinktinis' and sprinkle shots are on the menu, the party ends early: the latest available tickets on weekends are for 8 p.m. For years, the museum has wanted to extend its hours and liquor sales. Last week, the New York State Liquor Authority denied the museum's latest proposal, which would have allowed the museum to serve alcohol until 10:30 p.m. daily and midnight during private events. The application also sought to extend liquor consumption to all three stories of its building; alcohol use is currently limited to the main floor. 'We are requesting nothing beyond what other similar SoHo establishments already have — whether it's ice cream shops with licenses to serve alcohol or museums that host occasional private events. We're simply aligning with longstanding practices in the neighborhood and industry,' said Kate Ambas, a representative for the museum, in an emailed statement. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This Lawsuit Could Set a New Standard for Liquor Shipping in the US
A Los Angeles craft distillery is challenging the New York State Liquor Authority in federal court. And it's a case that could have broader implications for alcohol distribution in the United States. The case is titled The Obscure Distillery v. Lily M. Fan. The Obscure Distillery is a California craft distiller of spirits, including a rye whiskey made with American chestnut tree trimmings sourced from New York. Lily M. Fan, the chair of the New York State Liquor Authority since 2023, is being sued in her official capacity with the State Liquor Authority. The Obscure Distillery's filing alleges 'a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce that prevents out-of-state distilleries from competing in New York on equal terms with in-state distilleries.' Since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, liquor distribution in the United States has primarily followed what is commonly referred to as a 'three-tier system.' Under this structure, manufacturers and importers must sell their products to wholesale distributors, who then sell to consumer-facing retailers like liquor stores and bars. Regulations vary by state and sometimes by county. In 17 states, including Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, the state government controls the wholesale or retail distribution of alcohol. New York is not one of these states, meaning wholesale and retail distribution is handled by private entities. Related: How Tariffs on Everything From Aluminum to Barley and Malt Will Impact Beer Pricing As craft distilling has grown exponentially over the past 20 years — from dozens of producers in the mid-2000s to nearly 3,000 today — some jurisdictions have begun changing laws to allow for more direct-to-consumer sales. This includes regulations related to liquor e-commerce, as well as direct sales at distillery gift shops and tasting rooms. The Obscure Distillery's filing highlights restrictions on which out-of-state distilleries can and cannot ship to consumers in New York. In August 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S2852A, expanding the capacity of the state's small spirits, cider, and mead producers to ship directly to consumers. The law also outlines restrictions on certain out-of-state retailers, preventing them from shipping directly to New York residents. Specifically, the new law 'authorizes the direct interstate shipment of up to thirty-six cases of liquor per year to a New York resident, who is at least twenty-one years of age, by a licensed manufacturer with the privilege of producing liquor that is: (1) equivalent in class and/or annual production capacity to the NYS manufacturers authorized to make direct liquor shipments; and (2) from a state that affords reciprocal shipping abilities to similarly licensed NYS manufacturers.' In its filing on April 16, 2025, The Obscure Distillery alleges that because California and New York do not share shipping reciprocity, it cannot obtain an 'out-of-state direct shipper's license.' The filing argues that this prevents it and similar businesses from facing an unconstitutional ban on interstate commerce. Related: How the Latest Wine Tariffs Could Crush the Wine Industry 'Laws that treat businesses differently based on location are discriminatory and unconstitutional,' said Jeff Jennings, attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing The Obscure Distillery at no charge. 'By allowing in-state distilleries privileges that out-of-state distilleries don't have, New York has created an unfair trade barrier, violating the Constitution's Commerce Clause.' The Pacific Legal Foundation has a history of representing alcohol producers in court; recent cases have included a federal lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania's regulations on breweries and a state lawsuit focused on entertainment restrictions at Alaskan breweries. 'It is true that California's law is discriminatory too. But just because California has a discriminatory law doesn't mean that New York is allowed to discriminate against businesses in California,' the Pacific Legal Foundation writes in a recent blog post describing the case. 'It is unjust to burden hardworking entrepreneurs with additional, onerous hurdles that limit market access and economic opportunity to businesses located out of state. New York has created an unfair trade barrier, violating the Constitution's Commerce Clause.' The lawsuit seeks the following relief on behalf of the plaintiff: A. A declaratory judgment that N.Y. Alco. Bev. Cont. Law § 68, on its face and as applied to Plaintiff, violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution insofar as it bans out-of-state distilleries from shipping to New York consumers unless the out-of-state distillery's home state offers reciprocity to New York distilleries;B. A permanent injunction against Defendants, their officers, their employees, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them, directing them to stop enforcing N.Y. Alco. Bev. Cont. Law § 68's reciprocity requirement;C. Attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; andD. Any further legal or equitable relief that this Court may deem just and proper. It remains to be seen if this recent suit will hold up in court — and if it could create a new precedent for regulations surrounding interstate liquor shipping. Read the original article on Food & Wine
