In the past couple of days there’s been a fair amount of media coverage concerning the NYPD’s case against 169 Bar, the popular East Broadway dive. The city is suing the nightlife establishment in civil court after two undercover officers were allegedly served beers at 169 Bar in November. The place could, in theory, be shut down for a year (although that’s not likely). Here’s a statement we received last night from Jesse Danoff, an attorney representing the bar:
It has come to my attention that there is a bit of confusion surrounding the current litigation involving my client, Charles Hanson, and his bar/restaurant, 169 Bar. I want to it to be clear that the only allegation being made is that, according to the NYPD, an underage auxiliary police officer working as an agent of the NYPD used an ID to get past the doorman of the bar and allegedly purchase alcoholic beverages on two occasions, November 19th and November 20th. The suit by the city does not allege any other incidences of underage consumption or purchase of alcohol. After examining a multitude of evidence pertaining to these allegations, it is my firm belief that the ID used by the NYPD auxiliary officer was a fake ID thus making the alleged police operation unlawful. We believe the court proceedings will show without any doubt that 169 Bar has, and will continue to, operate lawfully and with the best interests of the public and community in mind.
We asked Danoff whether he was able to provide evidence that the undercover officer’s ID was a fake, but the defense attorney said he could not elaborate until after the preliminary injunction hearing. The two sides are due back in court tomorrow morning.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?