Community board committee objects to Gustito’s liquor license over incomplete paperwork and neighborhood safety concerns

At a March 19, 2025 meeting of the Bronx Community Board committee, members voted to send a letter of objection to the State Liquor Authority (SLA) regarding an application for an on‑premises alcoholic beverage license for Gustito’s Latino restaurant, 2132 Kruger Avenue.

The committee’s vote followed statements from board staff that the applicant had not provided required application materials, and public commenters who said they had witnessed unlicensed alcohol service and feared the business would operate as a lounge after hours. Chris Gerica, a board staff member, said the committee had received the initial application and 30‑day notice but was still waiting for the required questionnaire and a certificate of occupancy. Gerica also reported that Detective Paul and two neighborhood coordination officers told staff they had no objections related to the liquor application but noted unrelated issues at the neighboring barbershop.

The decision to object was driven primarily by three factors the committee cited: an incomplete application packet, the applicant’s absence from the meeting, and neighborhood complaints about drinking and public‑safety problems in the area. A caller who identified themself by a phone number criticized the applicant’s likely evening operations, saying, “It’s a bar after hours. It’s not a restaurant.” Other residents said they had not seen a posted notice at the business as required and reported past incidents on the block.

Committee members discussed stipulations — for example, a binding closing time — but noted that the local committee does not enforce liquor licenses; the SLA and NYPD handle enforcement. The committee agreed it could include recommended stipulations or objections in its letter to the SLA, but that any enforcement would be the SLA’s responsibility. Chair Juan Luciano said he could not, “in good conscience, vote for someone that, a, does not have a complete application, b, did not comply with SLA regulations, [and] c, the community is complaining about it.”

The committee passed a motion to send an email objection to the SLA citing the applicant’s nonappearance and the community concerns raised at the meeting. The transcript does not record a roll‑call vote tally; the committee chair announced, “So the motion passes.”

Staff was instructed to continue seeking the outstanding questionnaire, a certificate of occupancy and proof that the applicant complied with the public‑notice posting requirement. Committee members said they would present any subsequently submitted materials to the full board; if the applicant provides the missing documentation and addresses neighborhood complaints before the full board meeting, the full board could reconsider its position.

The SLA makes the final licensing decision. The committee’s letter is an advisory referral reflecting local concerns and the committee’s assessment of the incomplete application.