P
Philip_P
Guest
Some positive balance to all the negative carping about judges, from today’s NYT:
Judges Back NYC’'s Effort to Curb Sex Shops
By Sabrina Tavernise
In a broad ruling that could sharply curb the sex shop business in New York City, a state appeals court yesterday upheld city amendments aimed at regulating the trade more tightly.
The ruling, by judges from the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, overturned a lower court’s decision and handed a victory to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who had pushed for tighter enforcement of zoning laws that regulate the pornography industry. Lawyers for the city were trying to close legal loopholes that have allowed sex businesses to operate in residential neighborhoods.
The judges ruled in an appeal of an earlier decision favoring the sex shops, which had sued the city to challenge 2001 amendments that toughened standards for sex businesses. Previously, the businesses had been permitted to operate in residential areas as long as no more than 40 percent of their floor space was used for sexually oriented material, an allowance that city lawyers said was often abused.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, which include an adult movie theater, X-rated video stores and several strip clubs, said they planned to ask the court today to stay the ruling while they take their case to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that if the stay is denied, the ruling would take effect immediately, leaving dozens of adult entertainment stores and clubs in violation of city rules and forcing them to close or risk fines or sanctions. But legal experts said the court would probably grant the plaintiffs’ request.
In a statement, Mr. Bloomberg said the decision “strengthens the zoning law and eradicates a gaping loophole that allowed strip clubs and porn shops to operate as freely as drugstores and supermarkets.”
The ruling has its roots in a 1995 law that sought to regulate the pornography industry by preventing the clustering of such businesses in residential areas. But the law was vaguely written, and other courts later interpreted it as allowing a store or club to operate in residential neighborhoods as long as 60 percent of its merchandise was not sexually oriented. City lawyers argued that the stores then camouflaged themselves by stocking their shelves with videos no one wanted to buy, like golf instruction titles or “Bambi.”
“There was a new animal in town, and it was known as a 60-40 establishment,” said Martin Mehler, a lawyer for three such clubs.
In 2001, the City Council passed amendments to require a stricter adherence to the law. Mr. Mehler argued that the amendments were illegal because the city did not conduct a study showing that the businesses were bad for neighborhoods. Without such a study, the plaintiffs said, the changes could be construed as targeting content, a violation of the First Amendment.
But the four judges, sitting in Manhattan, rejected that argument. The amendments adopted in 2001, they ruled, simply furthered the original purpose of the law.
“The courts of this state have long acknowledged that municipalities are vested with broad power to implement land-use controls and programs in order to confront the increasing encroachments of urbanization on the quality of life,” the judges wrote.
Citing a 1986 court case, the judges wrote that the First Amendment did not require a city to conduct studies that have already been completed by other cities. Lawyers for the city had cited a study conducted in the early 1990’s showing that sex shops have adverse effects on their neighborhoods.
Yesterday’s ruling overturned a decision by Justice Louis B. York of State Supreme Court, who ruled in 2003 that the city’s amendments were unconstitutional because no new study had been conducted.
Herald Price Fahringer, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, said the case was really about the First Amendment.
“This is a classic situation of manipulating zoning laws to suppress a form of information they dislike,” he said. “To suggest for a moment that this isn’t censorship is folly.”
The areas with the most complaints are Greenwich Village and the western edge of Times Square, each with more than a dozen businesses.
Judges Back NYC’'s Effort to Curb Sex Shops
By Sabrina Tavernise
In a broad ruling that could sharply curb the sex shop business in New York City, a state appeals court yesterday upheld city amendments aimed at regulating the trade more tightly.
The ruling, by judges from the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, overturned a lower court’s decision and handed a victory to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who had pushed for tighter enforcement of zoning laws that regulate the pornography industry. Lawyers for the city were trying to close legal loopholes that have allowed sex businesses to operate in residential neighborhoods.
The judges ruled in an appeal of an earlier decision favoring the sex shops, which had sued the city to challenge 2001 amendments that toughened standards for sex businesses. Previously, the businesses had been permitted to operate in residential areas as long as no more than 40 percent of their floor space was used for sexually oriented material, an allowance that city lawyers said was often abused.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs, which include an adult movie theater, X-rated video stores and several strip clubs, said they planned to ask the court today to stay the ruling while they take their case to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that if the stay is denied, the ruling would take effect immediately, leaving dozens of adult entertainment stores and clubs in violation of city rules and forcing them to close or risk fines or sanctions. But legal experts said the court would probably grant the plaintiffs’ request.
In a statement, Mr. Bloomberg said the decision “strengthens the zoning law and eradicates a gaping loophole that allowed strip clubs and porn shops to operate as freely as drugstores and supermarkets.”
The ruling has its roots in a 1995 law that sought to regulate the pornography industry by preventing the clustering of such businesses in residential areas. But the law was vaguely written, and other courts later interpreted it as allowing a store or club to operate in residential neighborhoods as long as 60 percent of its merchandise was not sexually oriented. City lawyers argued that the stores then camouflaged themselves by stocking their shelves with videos no one wanted to buy, like golf instruction titles or “Bambi.”
“There was a new animal in town, and it was known as a 60-40 establishment,” said Martin Mehler, a lawyer for three such clubs.
In 2001, the City Council passed amendments to require a stricter adherence to the law. Mr. Mehler argued that the amendments were illegal because the city did not conduct a study showing that the businesses were bad for neighborhoods. Without such a study, the plaintiffs said, the changes could be construed as targeting content, a violation of the First Amendment.
But the four judges, sitting in Manhattan, rejected that argument. The amendments adopted in 2001, they ruled, simply furthered the original purpose of the law.
“The courts of this state have long acknowledged that municipalities are vested with broad power to implement land-use controls and programs in order to confront the increasing encroachments of urbanization on the quality of life,” the judges wrote.
Citing a 1986 court case, the judges wrote that the First Amendment did not require a city to conduct studies that have already been completed by other cities. Lawyers for the city had cited a study conducted in the early 1990’s showing that sex shops have adverse effects on their neighborhoods.
Yesterday’s ruling overturned a decision by Justice Louis B. York of State Supreme Court, who ruled in 2003 that the city’s amendments were unconstitutional because no new study had been conducted.
Herald Price Fahringer, a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, said the case was really about the First Amendment.
“This is a classic situation of manipulating zoning laws to suppress a form of information they dislike,” he said. “To suggest for a moment that this isn’t censorship is folly.”
The areas with the most complaints are Greenwich Village and the western edge of Times Square, each with more than a dozen businesses.