Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maya Lounge license review postponed after landlord files suit; commission defers until Nov. 20
Summary
The commission delayed action on Maya Lounge’s license after the landlord’s attorney reported a pending lawsuit over a disputed lease and a proposed sale. The licensee said the current lease and license remain active; the commission set a Nov. 20 status hearing.
At the hybrid meeting the commission heard a contested status matter for Maya Lounge (LLC d/b/a Maya Lounge) after the licensee and the landlord registered opposing claims about a lease and a proposed sale.
Attorney Paul Pellegrino, representing the landlord Jean Nail, told the commission a lawsuit was filed this week and that the landlord disputes the validity of a second lease and related transaction. Pellegrino said there were “a host of legal issues” that should be resolved in superior court and that, because litigation is pending, it would be inappropriate for the commission to decide the ownership or lease questions now.
Licensees Ashok and Rupali Kumarikuntla told the commission they hold the active liquor, entertainment and food licenses and an active lease, and that they have not surrendered the lease nor been served with a termination notice. The licensee said he had listed the business for sale, had exchanged documents and emails with a potential buyer, and that a prospective purchaser later declined to proceed after consulting advisors.
Beckham Quango, who said he had files supporting a 10‑year assignment, asked that his materials be placed on the record; staff indicated those would be shared with the commission and counsel.
Why it matters: The dispute involves control of a licensed premises, the validity of a lease and a pending sale — matters that can affect who may legally operate a business serving alcohol and what rights the landlord retains. Because the conflict involves active litigation, the commission declined to adjudicate ownership or lease validity and instead postponed administrative licensing action.
Outcome: The commission moved and approved postponement to the Nov. 20 meeting for a renewal/status hearing. The record notes that staff and police will continue to treat the existing licensee as the license holder until the court resolves the dispute.
Ending: The commission recorded the postponement and directed staff to place the item on the Nov. 20 agenda for status; the parties were told the superior‑court litigation should supply the dispositive facts the commission would need to consider any license transfer or revocation.
