Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Page 2 -- February 25, 1999 Z.B. Adult Entertainment -- Can adult business circumvent zoning regulations by admitting minors? Citation: City of New York v. Stringfellow's of New York Ltd., Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., Ist Dept., No. 6 (1999) Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. had operated an adult cabaret in New York City since 1991. It featured, among other things, toples..s female entertainers. In 1995, the city passed a zoning amendment that restricted where adult establishments could operate. The ordinance defined adult businesses to in- clude "adult eating or drinking establishments," which in turn were defined to include any business that had employees who regularly exposed "specified anatomical areas" and that was "not customarily open to the general public during such features because it excludes minors by reason of age." While the city's zoning regulations were being challenged in a number of lawsuits, Stringfellow's changed its admission policy to allow customers un- der the age of 18 to enter if a parent accompanied them. The parent had to tour the premises and then sign a statement warranting the topless entertainment or nudity wasn't harmful to the minor. The minor had to swear that topless danc- ing wasn't harmful or offensive and had to sign a statement swearing that the minor had or had not, as the case may be,' personally observed bare female breasts in movies, cable television, National Geographic, theaters, or maga- zines. The only evidence of a minor who entered the premises was the unsub- stantiated admittance of a 13-yea. r-old boy from Venezuela who visited with his father. After amending its entrance policy, Stringfellow's asked a court to declare that it wasn't an.adult eating or drinking establishment because it didn't ex- clude minors. In the meantime, the city's zoning amendments were found to be constitutional, and the court dismissed Stringfellow's lawsuit after the city filed its own lawsuit seeking to prevent Stringfellow's from operating an adult busi- ness in violation of the zoning ordinance. Stringfellow's admitted it was an "adult eating and drinking establishment" but said the zoning restrictions didn't apply because it didn't exclude minors. The city argued the zoning regulations applied to ail "adult eating and drink- ing establishments," regardless of whether the particular business in question admitted minors. According to the city, the language "not customarily open to the general public" described the .type of business adult and did not ex- empt any particular adult eating establishment that chose to admit minors. The court eventually dismissed the city's complaint, holding the zoning regulations didn't apply to Stringfellow's because its cabaret admitted minors and therefore wasn't an "adult eating and drinking establishment." The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. The city was entitled to a temporary order prohibiting Stringfellow's from operating its cabaret in violation of the city's zoning regulations. The cabaret