New York Law Review

Tag: Adult Businesses

  • For the People Theatres of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 27 Misc 3d 1079 (2010): Zoning Restrictions on Adult Businesses and the Burden of Proof

    For the People Theatres of N.Y., Inc. v. City of New York, 27 Misc 3d 1079 (2010)

    When a municipality defends a zoning ordinance regulating adult businesses against a First Amendment challenge, it must show that the affected businesses retain a predominant focus on sexually explicit materials or activities.

    Summary

    The City of New York amended its zoning regulations to curb negative secondary effects associated with adult businesses, which were found to be circumventing the 1995 zoning ordinance. The City’s zoning amendments were challenged by adult businesses, who claimed their First Amendment rights were violated. The New York Court of Appeals, applying the burden-shifting framework from Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., found that the City met its burden of demonstrating that the affected establishments retained a predominant focus on sexually explicit materials or activities, and that the 2001 amendments were facially constitutional. The Court emphasized that the City bore a modest evidentiary burden, akin to substantial evidence, in demonstrating the continued focus on sexually explicit content. The case underscores the importance of balancing free speech rights with a municipality’s legitimate interest in controlling the secondary effects of adult businesses.

    Facts

    In 1994, the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) conducted a study on the negative impacts of adult businesses. In response, the City Council enacted a zoning ordinance in 1995, which was challenged. The City then amended its zoning regulations in 2001 to clarify the definition of adult establishments and to address what it saw as sham compliance with the 1995 ordinance. The new regulations affected adult bookstores and adult eating or drinking establishments, which both claimed they had a First Amendment right to show adult materials. The businesses reconfigured their establishments to comply with the 1995 regulations but continued to emphasize sexually explicit content. The City presented evidence from inspections of the businesses, photographs, and video recordings to demonstrate the ongoing focus on sexually explicit content.

    Procedural History

    The original zoning ordinance of 1995 was challenged and upheld by the New York Court of Appeals. The businesses then challenged the 2001 amendments in the Supreme Court, where the court initially declared the amendments unconstitutional, and the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court upheld the 2001 zoning regulations. The Appellate Division, however, reversed the trial court’s decision, prompting an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the 2001 zoning amendments, which redefined “adult establishments” to address “sham compliance” with the 1995 zoning ordinance, violated the businesses’ First Amendment rights.
    2. Whether the City met its evidentiary burden to show that the 2001 amendments were constitutional by proving that the regulated businesses had a continued focus on sexually explicit materials.

    Holding

    1. Yes, the 2001 zoning amendments did not violate the businesses’ First Amendment rights.
    2. Yes, the City met its burden of demonstrating the continued focus on sexually explicit content in the regulated businesses, thereby justifying the amended regulations.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied the burden-shifting framework established in Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. to determine whether the zoning regulations were constitutional under the First Amendment. First, the Court confirmed the City’s right to regulate businesses. The Court clarified that the City only needed to provide “reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence” for its regulation, and it had done so. The Court then considered whether the businesses offered any facts that would dispute the city’s conclusion, which the Court found they had. The Court reviewed the city’s evidence showing that, despite technical compliance, the businesses’ essential character remained unchanged. In applying the Alameda Books framework, the court reiterated that the City’s burden was light and it only needed to show a rational basis for the law. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Appellate Division erred in applying a mechanical checklist. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding that the City provided sufficient evidence to support its position and that the 2001 amendments were constitutional. The court emphasized that the City’s zoning regulations did not need to meet a high burden of proof and should be upheld if there was relevant evidence that supported it.

    Practical Implications

    This case provides clear guidance on how municipalities can regulate adult businesses while respecting First Amendment rights. Attorneys advising municipalities should understand:

    – That a local government’s evidentiary burden in defending such regulations is relatively light, requiring only “substantial evidence” to justify the ordinance’s rationale.
    – That the focus of the analysis should be on whether the business retains a predominant focus on sexually explicit materials.
    – That courts should be deferential to the local government’s factual judgments.
    – That a mechanical, factor-based approach to determining the “focus” of a business is inappropriate; instead, the court should assess the totality of the evidence.
    – Later cases should analyze the facts of each case based on how similar zoning regulations are aimed at controlling the secondary effects of adult businesses while respecting free speech.

  • Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544 (1989): Zoning Ordinance Restricting Adult Uses Upheld

    Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544 (1989)

    A municipality may restrict adult business uses to certain areas of the community through zoning ordinances without violating the state constitution, provided the restrictions are designed to address the secondary effects of such businesses on the surrounding community and are no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose.

    Summary

    The Town of Islip sought to enjoin the respondents from operating an adult bookstore in a prohibited zone, arguing the business violated a zoning ordinance that restricted adult uses to Industrial I districts and required nonconforming uses to be amortized over time. The New York Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the Town’s zoning power, as it primarily aimed to control the negative secondary effects of adult businesses on the community rather than suppress speech. The court found that the ordinance met both federal and state constitutional standards for regulating land use, providing reasonable alternative avenues of expression and being no broader than necessary to achieve its purpose.

    Facts

    Respondent Caviglia operated the Happy Hour Bookstore, an adult bookstore, in a Business I district of the Village of Bay Shore since 1980. The Town of Islip adopted a zoning ordinance in 1980 that restricted adult uses, including adult bookstores, to Industrial I districts. The ordinance also provided a schedule for amortizing nonconforming uses. The Happy Hour Bookstore was a nonconforming use, and its amortization period had expired. The Town of Islip prepared a report indicating the harmful effect of adult businesses on the surrounding area. The Town then sought to enjoin the store’s operation. Respondents opposed the injunction, contending that the ordinance violated their rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the State Constitution.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court denied a preliminary injunction and upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance, granting the Town a permanent injunction. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by striking the provision of the ordinance requiring proprietors to obtain a special permit before establishing an adult use in an Industrial I district, but otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The respondents appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Town of Islip’s zoning ordinance, which restricts adult uses to Industrial I districts and provides for the amortization of nonconforming uses, constitutes an impermissible limitation of the respondents’ constitutional free speech rights under the Federal and State Constitutions.

    Holding

    No, because the ordinance is a valid time, place, and manner restriction that is designed to address the secondary effects of adult businesses on the surrounding community and is no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose. The amortization provisions are also valid because they provide a reasonable period for recouping investment and are not content-based.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that municipalities have broad power to implement land-use controls. Zoning ordinances are presumed constitutional if there is a reasonable relationship between the end sought and the means adopted. The court acknowledged that while the zoning power is broad, it is not unlimited, particularly when it affects First Amendment rights. Citing Renton v. Playtime Theatres, the court stated that municipalities could regulate adult uses through zoning if the predominant purpose is to control the secondary effects, the ordinance serves a substantial governmental interest, it is narrowly tailored, and it allows for reasonable alternative avenues of expression.

    The court found that the Town’s ordinance met these federal requirements, as it was predicated on a study demonstrating the deleterious effect of adult uses on the quality of life in the community. The court noted that the ordinance was part of a plan for downtown renewal. The court explicitly rejected the argument that the ordinance was content-based, noting the Town’s effort to control secondary effects, not to suppress speech. It found that the ordinance was narrowly tailored and provided alternative locations for adult businesses.

    Turning to the state constitutional issue, the court stated that New York could interpret its own constitution to extend greater protection to its residents than the federal constitution. Quoting People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, the court reiterated that the regulation of businesses which incidentally burden free expression may be sustained only if the state action is “no broader than needed to achieve its purpose.” The court distinguished Arcara, noting that in this case, the adverse effects of adult uses were not subject to direct attack through criminal proceedings or injunctions, making the zoning power the most appropriate means to address the Town’s substantive problems.

    The court also found that the amortization provisions were valid, stating that reasonableness is determined by examining all the facts, including the length of the amortization period. The respondents failed to overcome the presumption of validity, as they had continued to operate well past the amortization period and presented no evidence of economic loss. The court concluded that the ordinance was neither vague nor overbroad.