ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before me pursuant to Robert and Barbara Zanesky's Motion for Reconsideration of
my Order dated November 27, 1996, granting Petitioner David Norbut an on-premises beer and
wine permit, a minibottle license, and a liqueurs and wine license for cooking. After careful
consideration and review of the Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration, I find that there are no
grounds for granting the motion. Intervenors' arguments fail to provide any new information
sufficient to justify reconsideration of my original order. In Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C.
64, 358 S.E.2d 707 (1987), the South Carolina Supreme Court stated that "a motion for
reconsideration should only be granted when there is good cause, such as newly discovered
evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence, or change in conditions." Intervenors' motion
merely reiterates the arguments presented at the hearing without any additional information that
might constitute "good cause" for reconsideration. All issues raised by Intervenors' Motion for
Reconsideration were adequately addressed in my original Order. Furthermore, the Order and
Decision issued by this tribunal in the above-captioned matter on November 27, 1996 was based
on credible testimony and supported by South Carolina statutory law and case law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
John D. Geathers
Administrative Law Judge
December __, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina |
