Judge upholds NYC's right to zone adult-entertainment outlets

By The Associated Press

12.07.02

Printer-friendly page

NEW YORK — The city can enforce zoning laws that limit the locations of topless bars, X-rated video stores and peep shows without having to take similar steps against movies and theater productions that depict nudity, a judge has ruled.

Operators of several topless bars, including Ten's and the VIP Club, had argued in a case brought last year that the city violated their free-speech rights by applying the zoning laws to their businesses but not to shows like The Full Monty and films such as Y Tu Mama Tambien.

But Judge Michael Stallman of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled Dec. 5 that there was a difference between adult entertainment businesses and venues that occasionally feature nudity. (In New York, State Supreme Courts are trial courts.)

"Plaintiffs are being treated differently from establishments that might occasionally depict nudity or sexual activity in the course of artistic commercial activity or political expression," Stallman wrote.

"There is no indication that plaintiff establishments are being treated differently from other similarly situated establishments providing similar sexually oriented adult entertainment."

The city adopted the zoning laws in 1995 to curb the harmful effects it said adult entertainment outlets might have on neighborhoods.

Several lawsuits have unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the zoning rules.

Mark Alonso, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would appeal.

Related

State high court rejects challenges to NYC adult-business laws
Attorney says Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s crackdown on strip clubs could lead to attacks on other forms of entertainment.  03.30.01

State high court again sides with adult business in dispute with NYC
Unanimous court finds topless club doesn't fall under 1995 sex-shop zoning law.  05.05.00

NYC crackdown on sex shops stands as Supreme Court refuses to take appeal
X-rated enterprises had argued that regulations trampled free speech and threatened legal businesses.  01.11.99