Rhode Island news

Comments | Recommended

City board revokes SNM Liquor license

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, May 15, 2008

By Gregory Smith

Journal Staff Writer

Barrington Police Chief John LaCross said the revocation sends a severe message to licensees not to cater to minors.


The Providence Journal / Andrew Dickerman

PROVIDENCE — SNM Liquors sold beer and vodka to a 16-year-old, and in light of the proprietor’s previous offenses and his disregard for the law, he will lose his liquor license, the city Board of Licenses declared yesterday.

The board voted 3 to 0 with one abstention to immediately revoke the license of the Smith Hill liquor store.

Some of the beer that Shawn Merilan sold Nov. 5, according to testimony at a board hearing last week, was consumed by Michael J. Silveira, then 16, before Silveira wrecked his car in Barrington that night, killing his passenger and best friend, Jonathan C. Converse, 16.

Silveira pleaded no contest to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, death resulting, and he was sentenced to serve two years at the Rhode Island Training School.

Board member Gordon D. Fox called the revocation “a small price to pay for a young man who’s dead.”

Barrington High School student Thomas “T.C.” Kooris, accompanied by fellow student Kurt Grusmark, who was then 17, walked into the liquor store at 187 Douglas Ave. after hockey practice, according to testimony by Kooris and Grusmark.

Kooris bought three 30-packs of Busch Light beer and a pint of Kharkov vodka, using money that had been pooled during the school day, although he did not have a photo ID showing that he was of the legal age of 21 to purchase and possess alcohol.

He also did not sign a so-called minor book in which a customer attests that he is of legal age. Kooris said he told Merilan that he had signed the book at SNM Liquors three days earlier when he bought alcohol and that Merilan did not press him any further about his age on Nov. 5.

“Ninety beers –– it’s unfathomable,” Fox said.

What ensued was a night of beer drinking among Kooris and his friends, including Silveira, at several places in Massachusetts and Barrington, followed by the fatal auto accident. Grusmark went home.

Yesterday, Merilan’s lawyer, Steven D. DiLibero, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Barrington Police Chief John LaCross, who attended the vote at City Hall, said afterward that the revocation sends a severe message to licensees not to cater to minors.

“There are other stores out there that do that,” LaCross said. This example, he said, should prompt licensees to ensure that their employees are diligent in checking customers in order to screen out minors.

The board adopted findings of fact in the case and then voted for revocation. Chairman Andrew J. Annaldo said the sale showed a “willful and wanton disregard for the public safety” and that anything less than revocation “would jeopardize public safety.”

In January, the board suspended SNM’s license for five days and fined Merilan $1,000 for having sold alcoholic beverages to a minor in a police sting in November in the aftermath of the fatality. Merilan also was criminally charged with selling to a minor; he pleaded no contest and he was fined $250 in District Court.

He also had at least two previous liquor license offenses, public records show. On Sept. 21, 2006, the police charged, there were seven underage persons on his premises with alcoholic beverages. The board gave him a formal warning.

The second offense occurred in a police sting on Oct. 5, 2006. The board fined Merilan $250 for selling to a minor on that date.

“Here we are again,” Fox said yesterday, “Unfortunately, someone died.”

“The word was out in Barrington that this was a place that you can get liquor” even if you are underage, he added.

Voting to revoke were Annaldo, Fox and member Allene Maynard. Arys Batista abstained.

“I would have gone for anything less” than revocation, such as a lengthy suspension, Batista said. There was plenty of uncontradicted evidence to justify revocation, but he was not entirely persuaded that revocation is the appropriate punishment, he added.

gsmith@projo.com

Advertisement

Reader Reaction