ALJDEC

00A-0019-LIQ · Liquor Licenses and Control · 2000-06-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 3, 2000; June 21, 2000; Phoenix, Arizona APPEARANCES: Arizona Dep’t of Liquor Licenses and Control: Daniel R. Christl, Esq., Assistant Attorney General Las Ramadas Motel: Frances P. Ontiveros, Licensee ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: George A. Schade, Jr.

This is a disciplinary proceeding brought against a licensee pursuant to certain statutes and related rules of the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (“Department”). Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, Administrative Law Judge George A. Schade, Jr. submits this Recommended Decision and Order to the Director of the Department. FINDINGS OF FACT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On March 17, 2000, the Director issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing to licensee Frances P. Ontiveros, Las Ramadas Motel. The Complaint alleged seven counts of violations of statutes and related rules of the Department and of the State Liquor Board. The Notice of Hearing set a hearing on May 3, 2000, at the Office of Administrative Hearings. 2. Mrs. Frances P. Ontiveros, Las Ramadas Motel, holds License No. 11071041 issued by the Department on February 1, 1995. 3. On April 6, 2000, Mrs. Ontiveros filed an answer to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing. 4. On May 3, 2000, and on June 21, 2000, half-day hearings were held. The Department presented the testimony of Mr. Raúl Javier Lopéz; Mr. Mario Castillo; Mrs. Fabiola Garcia, a special investigator of the Department; Mr. Wallace D. Hopson, a special investigator of the Department; Mrs. Ontiveros; Mr. Paul R. Hansen, Vice President and Controller of Hensley & Company; and, Mrs. Patricia A. Miller, a compliance auditor of the Department. The Department submitted 24 exhibits which were admitted. Mrs. Ontiveros testified, but did not submit any exhibits. LAS RAMADAS MOTEL 5. The Las Ramadas Motel is located at 3158 West Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona. 6. The motel has a restaurant, kitchen facilities and a bar, which are the “licensed premises”[1] associated with License No. 11071041. 7. The restaurant, kitchen and bar are located in one building and are adjacent to each other. As one enters the restaurant building, one passes the restaurant first and proceeds to the bar in the rear of the building. The kitchen is between the restaurant and the bar. 8. The restaurant advertises and serves Mexican food. 9. Mr. and Mrs. Ontiveros live on the property of the motel in a building, which includes the motel’s office, which stands behind the swimming pool. The motel’s rooms form a squared-U around the center building and swimming pool. The restaurant and bar are located in the southwest corner of the property. 10. Mrs. Ontiveros operates the Ontiveros Bookkeeping & Tax Service business on the property of the motel. In 1999, she was operating this business on the property. 11. From Mrs. Ontiveros’ house on the property, through a window, she can see the door and the parking lot of the restaurant and bar. THE COMPLAINT The Complaint alleged seven counts. Findings of fact are submitted for each count. COUNT 1: On or about September 16, 1999, Alberto Fabían Talavera, an employee of the licensee, was not familiar with the liquor laws and administrative codes of the Director and the State Liquor Board, in violation of A.C.C. R19-1-105. 12. On September 16, 1999, Mrs. Fabiola Garcia and Mr. Wallace D. Hopson visited the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant and bar as part of an investigation. 13. Mrs. Garcia and Mr. Hopson found the restaurant open and an individual named Alberto Fabían Talavera at the bar. Mr. Talavera told Mrs. Garcia he had been working at the restaurant and bar eight days, and that Mrs. Maria Ester Vega Cecena and Mrs. Rocio Sanchez had hired him. 14. Mrs. Garcia interviewed Mr. Talavera and asked to see the licensee’s employee log. Mrs. Garcia testified that Mr. Talavera told her he did not know what an employee log was or where it was stored, or what kinds of personal identification were proper for the sale of spirituous liquor, or the hours during which liquor could be served at a place like the Las Ramadas Motel. Mr. Talavera stated he had not worked before in a bar, and indicated he believed a so-called “green card” was a proper form of personal identification for the sale of spirituous liquor. 15. Mrs. Garcia walked behind the bar and found an employee log. The log was, in her testimony, “blank” and did not show Mr. Talavera as an employee. She showed the log to Mr. Talavera, who expressed lack of knowledge as to how to complete the log. 16. Mr. Talavera told Mrs. Garcia he was not serving food at the restaurant, and the only food prepared at the restaurant had been for his personal consumption. COUNT 2: On or about September 16, 1999, Frances Ontiveros, the licensee, failed to maintain at the licensed premises a current employee log, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 4-119. 17. On September 16, 1999, when Mrs. Garcia and Mr. Hopson visited the restaurant and bar, Mrs. Garcia asked Mr. Talavera to show her the licensee’s employee log. Mrs. Garcia testified that Mr. Talavera told her he did not know what an employee log was or where the log would be stored. 18. Mrs. Garcia walked behind the bar and found an employee log. The log was, in her testimony, “blank” or incomplete and did not show Mr. Talavera as an employee. She showed the log to Mr. Talavera, who expressed lack of knowledge as to how to fill the information requested. 19. Earlier, on September 8, 1999, Mr. Hopson had visited the Las Ramadas Motel. Mr. Hopson found Mr. Talavera working at the restaurant and bar. Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Talavera to show him the licensee’s employee log. Mr. Talavera expressed lack of knowledge as to the requisites for completing and maintaining the employee log. 20. Mr. Hopson found the employee log, which did not include Mr. Talavera as an employee. Mr. Hopson explained to Mr. Talavera what was required and how to complete the information needed to be posted on the log. COUNT 3: On or about May 28, 1999, Rocio Sanchez, an employee of the licensee, purchased spirituous liquor from Costco, a source other than a wholesaler or registered retail agent, in violation of A.R.S. Section 4- 243.01(A)(3). 21. On September 16, 1999, Mr. Hopson visited the Las Ramadas Motel accompanied by Mrs. Garcia. When he walked inside the restaurant, he saw a small, wooden office cabinet near the pool table. He opened the cabinet’s drawers. 22. In the top drawer of the cabinet, Mr. Hopson found a receipt from COSTCO Wholesale (hereinafter “COSTCO receipt”; this retail store is commonly known as the Price Club) dated May 28, 1999, at 8:39 P.M. 23. The COSTCO receipt shows the following purchases: a. Two entries for Corona Beer b. One entry for Coors Light Beer c. One entry for Pacifica Beer d. One entry for Chivas Regal e. One entry for Jose Cuervo Mix f. One entry for a Kahlua Liter. 24. Mr. Hopson testified that he interviewed Mrs. Maria Esther Vega Cecena, who told him she had purchased liquor at COSTCO Wholesale for use and sale in the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant and bar. 25. There is no evidence showing that the liquor purchased from COSTCO Wholesale on May 28, 1999, either was or was not used or sold at the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant and bar. 26. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that during March and April, 1999, she purchased liquor from a wholesaler in order to restock the bar in preparation for the leasing of the restaurant and bar. 27. Official notice is taken that Corona Beer, Coors Light Beer, Pacifica Beer, Chivas Regal, Jose Cuervo Mix, and Kahlua are spirituous liquor products.[2] 28. There is no evidence showing that on May 28, 1999, COSTCO Wholesale was a wholesaler from a primary source of supply or a registered retail agent. COUNT 4: On or about June 1, 1999, the ownership of the licensed business had directly changed, and an application to reflect such change had not been filed with the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control as required by A.R.S. Sections 4-203(I) and 4-210(A)(6). 29. On September 16, 1999, when Mrs. Garcia and Mr. Hopson visited the Las Ramadas Motel, they also found in the drawers of the wooden cabinet in the restaurant the following documents: a. A Lease Agreement executed by Jesus Ortega and Rocio Sanchez-Ortega on May 22, 1999, and by Mrs. Ontiveros and her husband, but with no date shown when they signed the agreement. Mrs. Ontiveros testified she and her husband also signed the Lease Agreement on May 22, 1999. b. A business card of Mrs. Ontiveros for the Ontiveros Bookkeeping & Tax Service c. A business card for “El Tenampa Restaurant Bar” located at 3158 West Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona. The card indicates the “Owner” was “Esther Vega,” and the “Manager” was “Rosie Sanchez.” Department’s Exhibit No. 9. d. A letter dated July 13, 1999, from U S West Dex, Inc. addressed to Ms. Patricia Sanchez at Las Ramadas Restaurant. e. A Total Beverage System Agreement dated June 2, 1999, between Coca- Cola USA Fountain and Rocio Sanchez. d. An invoice from Vista Telecom, Inc. dated June 9, 1999. e. A City of Phoenix Water Bill with a Due Date of August 17, 1999, sent to Mrs. Ontiveros. 30. On May 22, 1999, Jesus Ortega and Rocio Sanchez-Ortega signed a Lease Agreement with Mrs. Ontiveros and her husband, for a term of ten years, beginning on June 1, 1999, at a monthly rental of $1,200.00, for “the commercial property located at 3158 West Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85009 for the sole purpose to be used as a restaurant and bar establishment.” Department’s Exhibit No. 8, p. 1. The agreement provided a space for Maria Esther Vega (Cecena) to sign, but the agreement presented at the hearing did not show that Mrs. Vega had signed the lease. Mr. Jesus Ortega, Mrs. Rocio Sanchez-Ortega and Mrs. Maria Esther Vega Cecena are collectively hereinafter referred to as “the new tenants.” 31. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that Mrs. Vega “was never available,” as Mrs. Vega frequently traveled to Mexico. 32. Mrs. Rocio Sanchez-Ortega paid Mrs. Ontiveros $500.00 on May 22, 1999. 33. The Lease Agreement provided under the heading “Liquor License” that: “The Landlords [Mr. and Mrs. Ontiveros] agree to allow the tenants [Jesus Ortega, Rocio Sanchez-Ortega, and Maria Esther Vega Cecena] the use of the #11 Liquor License, the tenants will be responsible to become agents for the license. The application for becoming agents for the license shall be done within 90 days of the signing of the lease.” Department’s Exhibit No. 8, p. 2. 34. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that the new tenants planned to rename the restaurant and bar the “El Tenampa Restaurant Bar.” 35. The July 13, 1999, letter from U S West Dex, Inc. to Ms. Patricia Sanchez concerned promotional advertisements including a free listing in the Yellow Pages. 36. The Total Beverage System Agreement between Coca-Cola and Rocio Sanchez related to the installation of leased dispensing equipment and provision of several beverages to the restaurant and bar. The beverages included Coca-Cola Classic, Diet Coke, Sprite, Pink Hi-C Flavor, Orange Minute Maid, and Raspberry Nestea. 37. The June 9, 1999, Vista Telecom, Inc. invoice named the business “El Tenampa Restaurant - Bar” and was for $400.00 (less a 20% discount). Department’s Exhibit No. 12. 38. The City of Phoenix water bill was addressed to Mrs. Ontiveros, and the account was in her name. The Lease Agreement provided that Mr. and Mrs. Ontiveros would retain the utilities in their names during the first year of the lease. 39. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that she gave the keys of the restaurant and bar to the new tenants on June 1, 1999. 40. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that she authorized the new tenants to enter the premises and complete remodeling, for example, some tiling and repairs were going to be done. 41. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that she neither authorized the new tenants to sell liquor nor did she know they were selling liquor. 42. The new tenants left the premises on or about September 23, 1999. According to Mrs. Ontiveros, they left without notice and took many things. 43. No evidence was presented showing that the new tenants completed a No. 11 Liquor License application on or before September 22, 1999. LICENSE NO. 11071041 44. On February 1, 1995, the Department issued License No. 11071041 to Mrs. Ontiveros. 45. On December 19, 1995, Mrs. Ontiveros placed the license on inactive status. 46. On February 2, 1997, Mrs. Ontiveros activated the license. 47. On the renewal forms for both 1998 (filed on February 27, 1998) and 1999 (filed on February 24, 1999), Mrs. Ontiveros stated that the license was inactive, but she did not file the required form on either renewal occasion. 48. There is no evidence showing that the new tenants successfully completed any efforts to obtain a permit on this license at any time during 1999. THE PURCHASE OF LIQUOR BETWEEN JUNE 1, 1999, AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 49. On July 26, 1999, at 1:27 P.M., Hensley & Company (a liquor wholesaler from a primary source of supply) delivered Budweiser Long Neck and Budweiser Long Neck Light Beer to Las Ramadas Motel under License No. 11071041. Mrs. Rocio Sanchez accepted and signed for the delivery. The cost of the delivery was $273.60. 50. The business records of Hensley & Company show the following deliveries of liquor and charges to the Las Ramadas Motel in June, July, August, and September, 1999: a. June $236.40 b. July 459.40 c. August 518.40 d. September 57.60 Total $1,271.80. THE OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT AND BAR 51. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that the restaurant and bar have been closed for liquor and food sales since February, 1998. Prior to that time, after she activated the license in February, 1997, she testified she operated the restaurant and bar “for five months at most.” 52. The business records of Hensley & Company show that liquor deliveries were made to the Las Ramadas Motel during the following months in 1997, 1998, 1999, and through May 31, 2000: a. 1997 Every month except January and September ($5,136.15) b. 1998 January, February and April ($931.80) c. 1999 Every month except March and October ($2,176.55) d. May 2000 Every month except May ($1,492.00). 53. The Zeb Pearce Companies (a liquor wholesaler from a primary source of supply) delivered liquor to the Las Ramadas Motel on February 7, 2000 ($97.80) and on April 7, 2000 ($177.70). 54. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that with the exception of liquor delivered between March and September, 1999, which was used to stock the bar, the other liquor was used primarily for personal consumption. For example, the liquor delivered by Zeb Pearce on April 7, 2000, was consumed at a family party Mrs. Ontiveros held. 55. On June 1, 2000, Mrs. Patricia A. Miller, a compliance auditor of the Department, interviewed Mrs. Ontiveros. Mrs. Miller testified that Mrs. Ontiveros told her that Mrs. Ontiveros “had had no part in the restaurant business for the past four years,” and, further, Mrs. Ontiveros did not have any food or liquor sales records available for Mrs. Miller’s inspection. COUNT 5: On or about September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the licensee’s motel restaurant was not open for the serving of food, in violation of A.R.S. Sections 4-205.01(A), 4-205.01(E), and A.A.C. R19-1- 231. 56. On September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 P.M., Mrs. Garcia visited the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant and bar as part of an investigation. 57. Moíses Cordova Fernández was inside the restaurant and bar. He was the only individual who was working. The other people present were two minors and a third person who were customers (see the Findings of Fact of Counts 6 and 7). 58. After Mrs. Garcia inquired about the availability of food for sale, Mr. Fernández informed her that the restaurant was not serving food at that time. 59. Mrs. Garcia did not see food either being prepared or being served at the time. 60. Mrs. Ontiveros testified that on that date the restaurant was closed, and food was not being served. 61. On September 22, 1999, between 8:00 P.M. and 8:45 P.M., at least two customers were served liquor, as described in the Findings of Fact of Counts 6 and 7. COUNT 6: On or about September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Moíses Cordova Fernández,[3] an employee of the licensee, knowingly permitted Raúl Lopéz, a person under the age of 21 years, to possess spirituous liquor on the licensed premises, in violation of A.R.S. Section 4-244(16). 62. On September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 P.M., Raúl Javier Lopéz arrived at the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant. Mr. Lopéz drove there with Art Davis and Mario Castillo. Mr. Lopéz testified that the restaurant “looked like it was open.” Mr. Lopéz knew there was a pool table inside the restaurant. There is also a drawing of a pool table on the building’s exterior wall. 63. Mr. Lopéz was then 19 years old. He was born on February 7, 1980. 64. An individual, later identified as Moíses Cordova Fernández, was in the restaurant and bar. In Mr. Lopéz’s opinion, Mr. Fernández “looked like an employee.” Mr. Fernández was the only person present inside the restaurant and bar besides Messrs. Lopéz, Davis and Castillo, while they remained in the restaurant, until Mrs. Garcia and Mr. Hopson arrived. 65. Mr. Fernández sold a Budweiser Light beer to Mr. Davis, who paid for it, but Mr. Lopéz drank the beer. 66. When Mr. Fernández sold the beer which Mr. Lopéz drank, Mr. Fernández did not ask for any personal identification of either Mr. Davis or Mr. Lopéz, and did not stop the sale of the beer to either of them. 67. Mr. Lopéz drank the beer and made no effort to hide the fact he was drinking it. 68. Mr. Lopéz played pool in the restaurant with Art Davis and Mario Castillo while he drank his beer. 69. Mr. Lopéz remained in the restaurant and bar for approximately thirty minutes. 70. Mr. Lopéz testified that Mr. Fernández told him food was not then available for sale. COUNT 7: On or about September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 p.m., Moíses Cordova Fernández, an employee of the licensee, knowingly permitted Mario Castillo, a person under the age of 21 years, to possess spirituous liquor on the licensed premises, in violation of A.R.S. Section 4-244(16). 71. On September 22, 1999, at approximately 8:00 P.M., Mario Castillo arrived at the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant. Mr. Castillo drove there with Art Davis and Raúl Javier Lopéz. 72. Mr. Castillo was then 19 years old. He was born on December 27, 1980. 73. An individual, later identified as Moíses Cordova Fernández, was in the restaurant and bar. Mr. Fernández was the only person present inside the restaurant and bar besides Messrs. Lopéz, Davis and Castillo, while they remained in the restaurant, until Mrs. Garcia and Mr. Hopson arrived. 74. Mr. Fernández sold a Budweiser Light beer to Mr. Davis, who paid for it, but Mr. Castillo drank the beer. Mr. Castillo reimbursed Mr. Davis for the beers Mr. Castillo drank. 75. When Mr. Fernández sold the beers which Mr. Lopéz drank, Mr. Fernández did not ask for any personal identification of either Mr. Davis or Mr. Castillo, and did not stop the sale of the beer to either of them. 76. Mr. Castillo drank the beers and made no effort to hide the fact he was drinking them. 77. Mr. Castillo drank “two or three” Budweiser Light beers during the time he remained inside the restaurant. In his opinion, he remained in the restaurant and bar for approximately forty-five minutes. 78. Mr. Castillo played pool in the restaurant with Messrs. Davis and Lopéz while he and Mr. Lopéz were drinking their beers. 79. Mrs. Garcia took photographs of the beers that both Mr. Lopéz and Mr. Castillo had been drinking. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Director has authority to enter an appropriate order in this matter.[4] 2. As it is seeking disciplinary sanctions, the Department has the burden of proof in this proceeding. [5] 3. The standard of proof on all issues is the preponderance of the evidence.[6] A “preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[7] It “is evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”[8] 4. Frances P. Ontiveros is, and was at all times relevant to this proceeding, the licensee of Liquor License No. 11071041 issued by the Department on February 1, 1995. 5. Between May 22, 1999, and September 23, 1999, Mrs. Ontiveros was the licensee of Liquor License No. 1107104 subject to the regulatory authority of the Department. Although a Lease Agreement was signed on May 22, 1999, an application to show the change was not filed with the Department on June 1, 1999, when the lease term began, and an application was never completed prior to the time that the new tenants left the premises. Therefore, Mrs. Ontiveros remained the licensee responsible for the acts or omissions of individuals, working at the restaurant and bar, which violated the statutes and rules of the Department. 6. An “employee” means “any person who performs any service on licensed premises on a full-time, part-time or contract basis with consent of the licensee, whether or not the person is denominated an employee, independent contractor or otherwise.”[9] 7. Mrs. Ontiveros had the ability to control better the actions of the new tenants but failed to do so in such a manner as to prevent the violations described in the Complaint. She lived and worked on the property. She had a view of the restaurant and bar’s door and parking lot. She knew what remodeling and repairs the new tenants were planning to complete. She negotiated, and her daughter prepared, the Lease Agreement. Throughout the hearing, she expressed having knowledge and experience in managing bars. 8. On September 16, 1999, Alberto Fabían Talavera, an employee, was not familiar with the liquor laws and rules and regulations of the Department and of the State Liquor Board in violation of Rule R19-1-105, supra. Mr. Talavera, who was working in the bar, did not have knowledge of essential and basic requirements for operations of licensed premises. 9. On September 16, 1999, Mrs. Ontiveros failed to maintain at the licensed premises a current log of all persons employed at the licensed premises including each employee’s full legal name, date and place of birth, address and responsibilities in violation of A.R.S. § 4-119. The employee log which was found was “blank” and did not include the individual found working in the restaurant and bar. 10. On May 28, 1999, Mrs. Rocio Sanchez-Ortega purchased spirituous liquor for use at the Las Ramadas Motel’s restaurant and bar from a source which was not a wholesaler from a primary source of supply or registered retail agent in violation of A.R.S. § 4-243.01(A)(3). COSTCO Wholesale is not a wholesaler or registered retail agent for the sale of spirituous liquor. Although there is no evidence showing that the liquor was actually used at the restaurant and bar, Mr. Hopson testified that Mrs. Vega told him she had purchased liquor at COSTCO Wholesale for use in the restaurant and bar; the receipt showed purchases of Mexican beer and liquor which would reasonably be expected to be available in a restaurant serving Mexican food; and the receipt, even though it was more than three months old, was found together with other important records of the new business. Had the receipt not been for business use of the liquor, most likely the receipt would not have been kept with the other records for three months. The preponderance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the liquor purchased on May 28, 1999, at COSTCO Wholesale was used in the restaurant and bar. 11. On or about June 1, 1999, the ownership of the licensed business changed by means of a lease agreement, but an application to reflect this change was not filed with the Department as required by A.R.S. §§ 4-203(I) and 4-210(A)(6). The Lease Agreement provided for the transfer of the liquor license from Mrs. Ontiveros to the new tenants. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that no completed application was filed with the Department to show this change of ownership. 12. On September 22, 1999, between 8:00 P.M. and 8:45 P.M., although spirituous liquor was sold, the restaurant was not open for the serving of food, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 4-205.01(A) and (E) and Rule R19-1-231, supra. 13. On September 22, 1999, between 8:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M., Moíses Cordova Fernández, an employee, knowingly permitted Raúl Javier Lopéz, who was under the age of 21 years, to possess spirituous liquor, namely, beer, on the licensed premises, in violation of A.R.S. § 4-244(16). 14.On September 22, 1999, between 8:00 P.M. and 8:45 P.M., Moíses Cordova Fernández, an employee, knowingly permitted Mario Castillo, who was under the age of 21 years, to possess spirituous liquor, namely, beer, on the licensed premises, in violation of A.R.S. § 4-244(16). RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that the Director revoke License No. 11071041 held by Frances P. Ontiveros, Las Ramadas Motel. SUBMITTED this 28th day of June, 2000.

George A. Schade, Jr. Administrative Law Judge

The original Recommended Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge was mailed on June 28, 2000, for distribution to the parties, to:

Howard G. Adams Director Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control 800 West Washington, 5th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85007

George A. Schade, Jr. ----------------------- [1] See A.R.S. § 4-101(24) (definition of “premises” or “licensed premises”). [2] See § 4-101(29) (“spirituous liquor” includes “alcohol, brandy, whiskey, rum, tequila, mescal, gin, wine, porter, ale, beer…”). [3] At the hearing, Counts 6 and 7 were amended to show the correct name of “Fernández.” [4] A.R.S. §§ 4-205.01(B) and (D), 4-210(A); see A.R.S. § 4-112(B) and (D); see Mathis v. Liquor Bd., 146 Ariz. 570, 707 P.2d 974 (App. 1985). [5] Rule R2-19-119(B), supra. [6] Rule R2-19-119(A), supra. [7] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence, § 5 (1960). [8] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (6th ed. 1990). [9] A.R.S. § 4-101(14).

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826