City of New York v Dorrian

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
City of New York v Dorrian 2006 NY Slip Op 30650(U) October 19, 2006 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 402161/06 Judge: Jane S. Solomon Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] .. . .. - . . - . . . . . ._..... - . - . . .. . .. . . . . ,. . ,,, . . . - [* 2] SUPREME COUKT OF TYE STATE OF NEW YORK OF NEW YORK: I A S PART 5 5 COUNTY THE C I T Y OF NEW YORY, DECISION AND ORDER Plaiiitiff, Index No. 4021.61/05 -ayainst- MICHAEL J. DORRLAN, 218 LAFAY'ETTE STREET RESTAURANT CORP., et al. , Jane S. Solomon, J. : Motion sequence n o s . 002 and 0 0 3 are c o n s o l i d a t e d for disposition. In m o t i o n sequence 30. 002, defendants Michael J. D o r r i a n and 218 L a f a y e t t e S t r e e t R.est.aurant Corp. (Restaurant) move, p u r s u a n t to CPLR 321i (a), or in thc alternative, CPLK 3 2 1 2 ( a ) , for an o r d e r dismissing the c o m p l a i n t . In motion s e q u e n c e no. 0 0 3 , defendants J6;G Family L i m i c c d Partnership ( , l & C ) and The Land and B u i l d i n g Known a s 218 L a f a y e t t e S t r e e t , Tax B l o c k hL482, Tax Lot #27 (Building) similasly move fGr an order dismissinq t h e comp1.aint. This is a n action to abatre a p u b 1 j . c nuisance, brought p u r s u a n t to New Y o r k C i t y A d r n i n i s t r a t i . v e Code (Administrative :. 1 '? ;,,- Code) §§ 7-704 and 7-716. a n d c i v i l penalties. -,.' J ~ The C i t y s e e k s a permanent f n j u n c $ : i o n J & C ; is the l a r i d l o r d t . n e Biiilding',. in w h i c h Dorrian and R e s t a u r a n t opeirated 'The F a l l s , a l i c e n s c d b a r , Administrative Code S 7 - 7 0 3 p r o v i d e s that: [t]he following are declared to be p u b l i c nuisances: ... ... (h) Any building, e r e c t i o n r ~ r l a c e p used for any of t h e unlawful a c t i v i t i e s described in s e c t i o n one h u n d r e d t . w e n t y - t h r e e of the alcoholic b e v e r a g e con l:.ro.L law. , .' [* 3] A l c o h o l i c Bcverage C o n t r o l Law (ABCL) S 123 refers to "traffic[ing] in liquor, wine or b e e r c o n t r a r y to a r . y provision ABCL 5 65 prohiblts, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t.he of this c h a p t . e r . " sale of alcchol to p e r s o n s u n d e r the age ( b ) p r o h i b i t s the 0.C 21. ABCL 5 106 ( 5 ) sale of alcoholic b e v e r a g e s , for on-site consumption, on d a y s other than S u n d a y s , between t.he hours of 4 ; O O a.m. a n d 8:OO a.111.~ The City's complaint,, as limited by its subsequent p p e ~ s ,rests upon the a f f i d a v i t s of t h r e e New Y o r k C i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , one of wham avers t h a t , on May 20, 2 0 0 6 , h e purchased b e e r and a mixed d r i n k at The F a i l s , at " c ) p p r o x i m a t e l y 4:01 and a n o t h e r beer at approxirnateIy 4:14 a . m . 3 a.111." The o t h e r t w o o f f i c e r s a l l e g e that, on January 4 , 2036, and on May 9 and 10, 2006, respectively, they entered 'The Falls w i t h , respectively, an u n d e r a g e p o l i c e c a d e t and, first one, and t h e n a n o t h e r underage auxiliary police o f f i c e r , and that t h e y observed e a c h of those i n d i v i d u a l s purchase a beer. Each of the bartenders t a r g e t e d in these u n d e r c o v e r investigations was issued a summons. Dorrian's counsel represented to this c o u y - t , at. oral a r g u m e n t on June 3.4, 2006, t h a t t h e J a n u a r y 4, 2006 3.munons has been d i s m i s s e d . addition, c o u n s e l f o r the C i t y Ecknowiedged, j.n In a September 14, 2006 l e t t e r to the court, that a n o t h e r of the four summonses has been dismissed. That summons is identified, in an affidavit from Defendants do n o t argue t h a t ABCL 5 123 is a procedural provision, and t.hat: it does not:. "d.escribe" any "unlawful activities. 2 [* 4] c o u n s e l for Restaurant, as [;he May 20, 2006 summons f o r after- hours s e r v i c e of alcohol. It would at;pear to the cc,xrt that one of the p r i r . c i p a 1 issues to be d e c i d e d on t-hese T n o L i o n s is whether the two remaining violations, of which the police o f f i c e r s ' a f f i d a v i t s are prima facie evidence (City of Y e w Yor k v Mor, 261 A D 2 d 185 [?st.Dept 1999]), o r even t h e initial four, suffice, a s a matter of l a w , t o constitute "USQ" Administrative C o d e 5 7-703 of the B u i l d i n c j w-!.thin . t h e meaning of (h). The q u e s t i o n a r i s e s because c e r t a i n subdivisions of section 7 - 7 0 3 providc t h a t a public n u i s a n c e arises only a f t . e r a c e r t a i n number of v i o l a t i o n s have o c c u r r e d (subdivision [ g ] : three or more v i o l a t i o n s in the y e a r preceding commencement of an action; s u b d i v i s i o n [m]: two or more violations). O t h e r s u b d i v i s i o n s of A d m i n i s t r a t i - v e Code 5 7 - 7 0 3 s p e c i f y t h . a l l one violation, o r t're e x i s t e n c . e of a certain condition, suffices t o c o n s t . i ~ . i i t e public n u i s a n c e (subdivisions a [ e ] , [i], [j], [ k ] , and [l]). 7-703, Y e t . other subdivisjons of section each of which d e f i n e s a particular use of a building as a public nuisance, specify indicia on t h e b a s i s of w h i c h such u s e may be presumed. T h u s , subdivisions ( ~ i ) , (In), and (c), which pertain to buildings u z e d , respectively, for p r o s t i t u t i on, obscene p e r f o r m a n c e s , a n d tfic p r c m n t l o r i of obscelic m a t e r i a l (as t h o s e terms are d e f i n e d in the Penal L a w ) , p r o v i d e t . h a t it. may be presumed t h a t the building is a public n u i s a n c e w h e r e there have been two or more convictjons for prostitution, o b s c e n e performances, or promotion of o b s c e n e m a t e E i a l in the b u i l c l j ng, 3 [* 5] w i t h i n t h e y e a r p r e c c u i n g an acti.on by the C j . t y . Similarly, subdivision (dj p r o v i d e s that the same presumption a r j s e s where t h e r e has been one criminal conviction f o r t h e v i o l a t i o n proscribed i n t h a t subdivision. Only s u b d i v i s i o n s ( h ) and ( f ), t h c l a t t e r of which p e r t a i n s to i i ~ e of a space for the p u r p o s e of an a c t i - v i t y that is not licensed, as required by law, F a i l to specify t h e extent o f forbidden z;ctiv.i.ty that i s required in o r d e r for a public nuisance to have arisen, h a v e done s o . or to be presumed t o To b e q i n with, it would have appeared anomaI.ous t o t.hi.s court t h a t t h e C i t y Council c o u l d have i n t e n d e d that the p e n a l t i e s pruvi.ded for in Titie 7 of thc Administrative Code be imposed for one instance i n whic? a bar served a beer to a 19year-cjld y i l t m n , but t h a t if t h e bar sold n a r c o t i c s t.o a p a t r o n , t h o s e Same p e n a l t i e s c o u l d be imposed only a f t e r three c o n v i c t . i o n s for such sales i.n a one-year period. Administrative Code However, § 7-703 (y) - t h e court will not: v e n t u r e to answer the q u e s t i o n posed above, b e c a u s e , in a c a s e involving t h e allegcd use o f a building for t h e purposc of p r o s t , i t u t i o n , t h e Appellate Division, First Department, has h e l d t h a t a f f j d a v i t s from three police o f f i c e r s , each of which stated t h a t the o f f i c e r had been offered s e x in exchange for money, in a bar, and t h a t , i r i e a c h case, t . h e offeror had been arrested, " e s t a b l . i s h , a t a mini.mum, t r i a b l e issues of fact a s to whether [ t h e b a r ] w a s u s e d for t h e purpose o f prostitution." C i t v of N e w 'fork v The Land and Euildins Rna wn as 355 West 41st S t r e e t , 23 AD3d 183, 18.5 (1st 4 [* 6] Dept 2005) a t least . FIS Accordingly, here, tje police officers' affidavits, t o t'r.ose summonses that have riot b e e n dismissed, suffice t.o raise t-rriable issues of fact a s to w h e t h e r The F a l l s was "used for 1231 . " any of t h e unlawful. activj I . i e s described i r i [ARCL 5 Administrative C o d e S 7-7@3 (h). 2 D e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d thaz, in a n y e v e n t , a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d n o t be issued b e c a u s e , on J u l y 3 , 2 0 0 6 , J&G served upon Dorrian a 1 5 - d a y notice of termination of lease. In ari affidavit., s w o r n to un July 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , D u r r i a n a v e r s that The Falls was closed on June 5 , 2006, Restaurant has s u r r e n d e r e d its l i q u o r l i c e n s e , a n d he expect-s to terminate t h e lease on J u l y 18, 2006. However, even if D o r r i a c h a s i n fact terminated the lease, there is no g u a r a n t y that he w i i l n o t reappear in t h e same place "under another guise. C i t v of N e w York v Mor, 2 6 1 AD2d a t 187, quoting C i t v o f N e w Y Q k ~ v 924 Co, 'Jmbus A s s n c : ~ . , L. P . 19, 22 (-1stDept 1 9 9 6 ) . , 219 AD2d Accordingly, [:he c o m p l a i n t , a s w h o l e , will riot be dismissed. However, the c o m p l a i n t w i l l be dismissed i n s o f a r a s it seeks civil damages a g a i n s t J&G. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code § 7-716 (a) provides that, w i t h respect to the public nuisances defined in subdivisions . . . ( h ] 01 s e c t i o n -/-'I03. . . the c o r p o r a t i o n counsel x a y b r - i n y . . . a c i v i l I n t h e above-mentioned September 14, 2006 l e t t e r to thc court, counsel f o r the C i t y asserts t h a t the C i t y has n o t abandoned i t . s second a n d third c a u s e s of action. However, d e I e n d a n t u a r g u e d that t h o s e causes of a c t i o n fail to state a cause of a c t i o n , and t h c City d i d n o t r e s p o n d t.o those a.rgument.s, in its o p p o s i t i o n t o defendants' motions. [* 7] p r o c e e d i n g in Lhe r-lame of the c i t y - . . t.o r e c o v e r a civil..p e n a l t y a g a i n s t a n y p e r s o n c o n d u c t i n g , r m i n t a i n i L q or permi h t i n g a public nuisance w i t h i n the scope of ",is subchapter. The complaint does not. a l l e g e a single fact to support its c o n c l . u s o r y allegation t h a t I' [tl'ne owners knew of t h c a l l e g e d a c t i v i t y being c o n d u c t e d in the s u b j e c t premises arid have i n t e n t . i o n a l . l y conducted, mainti.,.i.ned, or p e r m j . I Led t h e , C o m p l . a i n t , 'il 2 9 . aforementioned p u b l i c nuisance." Accordingly, it h e r e b y is ORDERED t h a t the motior. of Michael D o r r i a n and 21.R Lafayette S t r e e t Restaurant Corp. is denied; and it is further ORDERED t h a ! : thc rnotior- of d e f e n d a n t s J&G Family Limited P a r t n e r s h i p and the Building is g r a n t e d Lo the e x t e n t that plaintiff's c l a i m for civil damages against s a i d defendants is dismissed. Dated: October ,, > . ENTER: G:\SHARED\OGlCIS City v Dorxi.an dismiss.wpd 6 ,,?k ~,>, ., y_,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.