State Supreme Court Justice Louis B. York recently ruled for the plaintiffs, a theater and video store whose stock includes adult materials, in finding against the city’s attempt to amend the adult-use zoning law.
In 2001, the city sought to amend the part of the adult-use zoning law that allows sex-oriented businesses to operate in non-restricted commercial areas if 60 percent of the businesses’ trade is non-adult.
Two years prior to the adult-use zoning law’s introduction in 1995, the city did a study of adult businesses to show that negative secondary effects, like crime, were associated with them. At the time of its introduction, the law’s language said that businesses that were “substantially” adult-use would fall under the adult-use category. That was further defined as no more than 40 percent of their business being adult.
Subsequently, as so-called “60/40” businesses proliferated in non-restricted areas, the city, calling them a “sham,” sought to change this definition, broadening the definition of adult-use business. On March 22, 2001, the Department of City Planning applied for a text amendment on the grounds that the adult establishments had been superficially complying with the 1995 resolution.
But in the most recent case, the judge ruled the city had not done a study of secondary effects from 60/40 businesses. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that to restrict material based on content, negative secondary effects must be proven.
Professor Arthur Leonard of New York Law School, who writes on gay and lesbian issues for The Villager’s sister publication, Gay City News, recommended the city do a study of secondary effects if it wants to win the case.
The 60/40 law is currently being used by, among others, the Manhattan Gentlemen’s Club, a new topless club at E. Houston and Essex Sts., and Fantasy World, a new sexual party favors store at Greenwich Ave. and Seventh Ave. S.
