City of New York v. Dezer Props., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 943 (N.Y. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
City of New York v. Dezer Props., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 943 (N.Y. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ten's Cabaret, Inc. v. City of New York (nycivct, 2003-09-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ten's Cabaret, Inc. v. City of New York (2×)
N.Y. City Civ. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
(Id. at 397, 400.) “Based upon [the City’s] extensive analysis [in the 1993 DCP Report] of the impacts of such establishments in the City, the amendments represent a coherent regulatory scheme designed to attack the problems associated with adult establishments.” (Id. [emphasis added].) In City of New York v Dezer Props. ( 95 NY2d 771, 772 [2000]), the Court of Appeals further clarified that the 1995 Resolution applied to “substantial portion adult establishments.” (Id. at 772, citing Resolution; see, supra at 3 [containing text of this provision].) In light of Stringfellow’s, the …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) For People Theatres of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
As discussed in the Ten’s decision, defendants’ argument lacks merit because 60/40s proliferated as a result of the 1995 Resolution (City of New York v Dezer Props., 95 NY2d 771, 773 [2000]), and the 1993 DCP Report cannot be used as a basis for these new 60/ 40s.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People Theatres of New York, Inc. v. City of New York
NY · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
We cannot rewrite the City’s guidelines to include these additional considerations” (id.; see also City of New York v Dezer Props., 95 NY2d 771 [2000] [an eating or drinking club that regularly features adult activities in less than 40% of its floor area is not an “adult establishment” within meaning of 1995 Ordinance]). 2 In light of the perceived continuing subversion of the 1995 Ordinance and the unforeseen textual ambiguities and limitations that had hamstrung its enforcement efforts, in March *74 2001 the DCP filed an application for amendments with the CPC.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
City of New York
v.
Dezer Properties, Inc., Appellants-Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
May 4, 2000.
732 N.E.2d 943
2000 N.Y. LEXIS 896
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Margaret G. King, Gabriel Taussig, Elizabeth S. Natrella, Karen M. Griffin and Kerri A. Devine of counsel), for respondents-appellants., Rothkrug & Rothkrug, Great Neck (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for appellants-respondents., Zane & Rudofsky, New York City (Edward S. Rudofsky, Charles F. Axelrod and Arlene H. Schechter of counsel), for Council of Regulated Adult Liquor Licensees, amicus curiae.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs to defendants, and the order of Supreme Court reinstated. The certified question need not be answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

New York City Zoning Resolution § 12-10 provides that, in order to qualify as an “adult establishment” subject to municipal regulation, a “substantial portion” of a commercial establishment must include the following adult uses: “an adult bookstore, adult eating or drinking establishment, adult theater, or other adult commercial establishment, or any combination thereof’ (see, Amended Zoning Resolution of City of NY § 12-10; City of New York v Les Hommes, 94 NY2d 267, 270). The Zoning Resolution goes on to describe an “adult eating or drinking establishment” as an eating or drinking establishment that “regularly features” specified adult activities. Finally, the Zoning Resolution defines “substantial portion” by the percentage of floor area devoted to the above-mentioned adult uses.

The sole question now before this Court is one of statutory interpretation. Dezer Properties, Inc. contends that “substantial portion” analysis is applicable in determining whether its club, only a part of which is dedicated to adult activities, is an “adult establishment” subject to regulation. The City, by[*773] contrast, contends that any adult activity in a club in and of itself qualifies the entire club as a regulable “adult establishment.”

We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, each of which concluded that the “substantial portion” component applied in determining whether Dezer’s club constituted an “adult establishment” subject to municipal regulation (259 AD2d 116, 121; see also, 1995 City Planning Comma Report on Adult Use Zoning Amendments, at 49-51; City of New York v Wiggles, 178 Misc 2d 1007, 1013-1014; City of New York v Show World, 178 Misc 2d 812, 816-817). By so construing the ordinance, we accord meaning to every section of the City’s own Zoning Resolution, whereas the interpretation urged by the City would effectively excise the “substantial portion” component from the enactment in cases of eating or drinking establishments. While unanimous in this reading of the Zoning Resolution, the Appellate Division nevertheless disagreed concerning actual application of the “substantial portion” component to the facts of this case. The City, however, conceded before Supreme Court that Dezer allocated less than a “substantial portion” of the club’s floor area to adult activities (see, Transcript of Mar. 16, 1999, Oral Argument; see also, 259 AD2d, at 120, 122, supra). Thus, the issue was not properly before the Appellate Division and cannot be reached by this Court.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.