DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 275, 706 N.Y.S.2d 395, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 275 (DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 275, 706 N.Y.S.2d 395, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Steven Crane, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, declaring that the Adult Use Amendments of the New York City Zoning Resolution as applied to plaintiffs are not preempted by the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is “surely pre-emptive” (People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 465, 469), establishments selling alcoholic beverages are not, as a consequence, necessarily exempt from local laws of general application (see, supra, at 471-472). The Adult Use Amendments to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York are local laws of general application with a legitimate governmental purpose. Any impact of those laws on establishments holding liquor licenses is incidental, and not a result of an attempt by the City to regulate the sale, distribution or consumption of alcohol. Moreover, there is nothing mutually exclusive about these two separately focused regulatory provisions (see, Incorporated Vil. of Nyack v Daytop Vil., 78 NY2d 500, 507).

[276]*276As to plaintiffs’ contention that topless dancing is a protected form of entertainment, the constitutionality and propriety of the Amended Zoning Resolution as it relates to freedom of expression have been upheld by the Court of Appeals in Stringfellow’s of N. Y. v City of New York (91 NY2d 382). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Steven Crane, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, declaring that the Adult Use Amendments of the New York City Zoning Resolution as applied to plaintiffs are not preempted by the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is “surely pre-emptive” (People v De Jesus, 54 NY2d 465, 469), establishments selling alcoholic beverages are not, as a consequence, necessarily exempt from local laws of general application (see, supra, at 471-472). The Adult Use Amendments to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York are local laws of general application with a legitimate governmental purpose. Any impact of those laws on establishments holding liquor licenses is incidental, and not a result of an attempt by the City to regulate the sale, distribution or consumption of alcohol. Moreover, there is nothing mutually exclusive about these two separately focused regulatory provisions (see, Incorporated Vil. of Nyack v Daytop Vil., 78 NY2d 500, 507).

[276]*276As to plaintiffs’ contention that topless dancing is a protected form of entertainment, the constitutionality and propriety of the Amended Zoning Resolution as it relates to freedom of expression have been upheld by the Court of Appeals in Stringfellow’s of N. Y. v City of New York (91 NY2d 382). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 275, 706 N.Y.S.2d 395, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djl-restaurant-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack