Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that Stringfellow’s, a topless bar, qualified as an “adult eating or drinking establishment” under the New York City Zoning Resolution despite its purported policy allowing minors to enter. The court concluded that the policy was so restrictive and rarely used that the establishment was not customarily open to the general public, and affirmed the permanent injunction against its operation as an adult establishment.
Holdings
- Stringfellow's remained an adult eating or drinking establishment because its restrictive minors policy did not make the establishment customarily open to the general public during its adult features.
- The term customarily must be applied according to the establishment's actual and habitual practices, and the court may reject a strained interpretation that would create an end run around the zoning regulation.
Questions Presented
- Whether a topless bar's purported policy permitting admission of minors made it customarily open to the general public and excluded it from the Amended Zoning Resolution's definition of an adult eating or drinking establishment.
- Whether the court could consider the actual operation and industry standards in determining the meaning of the term customarily in the zoning provision.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- DJL Rest. Corp. v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 91(followed)
- Stringfellow's of N.Y. v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382(followed)
- City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41, 47-50(followed)
- Matter of Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544, 552-555(followed)
- City of New York v. Dezer Props., 95 N.Y.2d 771, 773(distinguished)
- City of New York v. Les Hommes, 94 N.Y.2d 267, 274(distinguished)
- Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 35, 43(followed)
- Buzzetti v. City of New York, 140 F.3d 134(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…