The 1989 revisions added the provisions which are currently considered problematic, including adding language using undefined terms, adding the confusing language of Use Group 6A contrasted with Use Group 6C, adding the requirements of waiting areas, etc. Caveat: not all of the language proposed is in the current ZR. The proposal also recommended the changes which did not properly include M2 and M3 in the Use Group 12.
IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by the Department of City Planning pursuant to Section 200 of the New York City Charter, for amendments of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York relating to language which refers to "incidental music," easing restrictions on clubs with no dancing with capacities of under 200 people and imposing more restrictive regulations on larger entertainment establishments and those with dancing.
Following are leading court decisions concerning music, dancing, the NYC Cabaret Law and the NYC Zoning Resolution.
New York State Courts:
Warren Chiasson v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 132 Misc. 2d 640, (N.Y. Co. 1986.)
State court holds Cabaret Law and Zoning Resolution provisions restricting number of musicians as unconstitutional.
John Festa v New York City Department of Consumer Affair, 12 Misc. 3d 466, (N.Y. Co. 2006.) Court held that there is no constitutional right as to patron dancing.
John Festa v New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 37 A.D.3d 343.( New York Appellate Division, 2007) (on appeal from the NY Supreme Court 2006 case.)