146 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 1998), 98-7269, Hickerson v. City of New York

Docket Nº:Dockets Nos. 98-7269, 98-7270.
Citation:146 F.3d 99
Party Name:Rachel HICKERSON, Derek Jones, Ty McConnell, and Elliot Stamler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Amsterdam Video Inc., A & X Entertainment Inc., d/b/a Playpen II, Adult Video, Inc., Ascot Space Amusement, Inc., d/b/a Ascot Theatre, Big Apple Cinemas Inc., d/b/a Show Follies Theater, Brett Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Media Distributors, Capri Cinema Inc., Capw
Case Date:June 03, 1998
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 99

146 F.3d 99 (2nd Cir. 1998)

Rachel HICKERSON, Derek Jones, Ty McConnell, and Elliot

Stamler, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Amsterdam Video Inc., A & X Entertainment Inc., d/b/a

Playpen II, Adult Video, Inc., Ascot Space Amusement, Inc.,

d/b/a Ascot Theatre, Big Apple Cinemas Inc., d/b/a Show

Follies Theater, Brett Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Media

Distributors, Capri Cinema Inc., Capwell Entertainment,

Inc., d/b/a Legz Diamond's Playhouse, Church Street Cafe

Inc., d/b/a Baby Doll Lounge, College Pt. Rest. Corp., d/b/a

Gallagher's II, Crazy Fantasy Video, Inc., Cupid's

Treasures, Inc., d/b/a Banana Video and Unicorn, Dara

Distributors Inc., d/b/a Love Shack, Desire Video Inc., E &

A Books, Inc., E & A Video and Magazine Inc., Ed-Mart Bar &

Grill Inc., d/b/a Penny Whistle, For the People Theatres of

N.Y., Inc., d/b/a Fair Theatre, Four Keys Enterprises, Inc.,

d/b/a Hollywood Peepshows, Fourteenth St. Enterprises Inc.,

d/b/a All Male Adult Video, Fun City Video Corp., G & D

Merchandise Corp., d/b/a Peepland, Gotham Exhibitor Inc.,

d/b/a Peep O Rama, Helen Wolff Ltd., d/b/a Come Again, I.S.

Sultars Inc., J & J Tummy Yummies Corp., d/b/a Naked City,

JGJ Merchandise Corp., d/b/a Peepland/Valentina's II, JHM

Video Corp., JUM Operating Corp., d/b/a Peepland, JVR Video

Center Inc., d/b/a Playground, Kinematics Merchandising &

Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Kinematics, Kisma Video, Inc., L &

T Video, Inc., d/b/a Badlands Adult Video, Madeline

D'Anthony Ent. Inc., d/b/a Harmony Theatre, Manhattan Video

Inc., Marquis Video Inc., d/b/a Marquis Video, Mirage

Productions Inc., d/b/a Love Shack, Montana Holdings Inc.,

d/b/a Runway 69, Nawan Entertainment Inc., d/b/a Euro World,

Nilupul Video Inc., N.R.S. Video Inc., N.Y. Video Inc.,

d/b/a Love Shack, Pabon Theatre Corp., d/b/a Eros Theatre,

Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Paradise Club, R.E.J.M.,

Inc., d/b/a Big Top, Ron Bob Pub Inc., d/b/a Gallagher's,

Sami's Video Warehouse, d/b/a Warehouse on the Block, LTD,

Serendib Video Inc., d/b/a Serendib Video, SPH Video Corp.,

Star Distributors, LTD, Statewide Video Inc., Steam Heat

Inc., STS Video Inc., d/b/a Adult Video, Suemar Video, Inc.,

d/b/a Goodtime Video, Third Avenue Entertainment Inc., d/b/a

XXX Video, Thunder Video Inc., Town Video Sales, Inc., d/b/a

Les Hommes Book Shop, Video, Video, Video, Inc., Video 30 of

Queens Inc., d/b/a Ecsxxxtasy Video, West Video Inc., Zideo

Video Inc., 21 Ann Street Corp., d/b/a Ann Street Adult

Entertainment, 130 C Street Corp., d/b/a Christopher Street

Book Shop, 155 Video Center Corp., d/b/a Peepworld, 300 Book

Center, 303 W. 42nd Street Enterprises Inc., d/b/a Show

World, 323 Canal St. Inc., 325 W. 45th St. Rest. Corp.,

d/b/a Private Eyes, 35-30 38th St. Corp., d/b/a Cityscape,

412 8th Ave. Corp., d/b/a Nude New York City, 45-08 Vernon

Blvd. Corp., d/b/a Riverhead Inn, 603 Video Inc., 610 Video

Store Inc., 691 8th Avenue Corp., 691 Video Center Corp.,

693 Video Corp., d/b/a TNL Video, 711 Associates Ltd., d/b/a

Peepland, 729 6th Avenue Corp., d/b/a Billy's Topless, 733A

Corp., d/b/a Video Palace, 763 Video Store Inc., 777-779 8th

Ave. Corp., d/b/a Hollywood Twin, 81-22 Baxter Ave. Lounge

Inc., d/b/a ILDA's Place II, Plaintiffs-Appellants.


The CITY OF NEW YORK, Hon. Rudolph W. Giuliani, as Mayor of

the City of New York, Joseph B. Rose, as Director of City

Planning, Department of City Planning of the City of New

York, and Gaston Silva, as Commissioner of Buildings,

Department of Buildings of the City of New York, Defendants-Appellees,

Times Square Business Improvement District, Center for the

Community Interest, Bellaire/Bell-Vill Civic Association,

Bnos Israel Girls' School, Bowne Park Civic Association,

Briarwood Community Association, Bronx Community Board # 12,

Brooklyn Civil Council, Brooklyn Tenants Council, Cardinal

Spellman High School, Coalition of United Residents for a

Safer Environment, College Point Board of Trade, Committee

for a Better and Safer Nostrand Avenue, Communities of

Masbeth and Elmhurst Together, Community School District 21

Presidents' Council, Congregation Bnai Shloima Zalman, Crown

Heights Taxpayers and Civic Association, Douglaston Civic

Association, East Midwood Neighborhood Association,

Councilmember Andrew Eristoff, Grand Central Partnership,

Holliswood Civic Association, Hudde Junior High School

Parents Association, Jackson Heights Community Development

Corporation, Kings Highway District Management Association,

Kingsway Jewish Center; Lawyers' Committee on Violence,

Manhattan Terrace Civic Association,Councilmember Helen

Marshall, Midwood Civic Action Council Inc., New Northern

Boulevard Business Association, Northern Boulevard

Merchants' Association, 100-299 East 77th Street Block

Association, Prospect Park Yeshiva, Queens Braddock Civic

Association, Queens Village Civic Association, Real Estate

Board of New York, Residents Against Street Prostitution,

Rosedale Block Association, Rosedale Civic Association,

Councilmember John Sabini, 34th Street Partnership, United

Civic Council of Queens, United Community Civic Association,

Councilmember Anthony Weiner, West 45th Street Block

Association, West 47th/West 48th Street Block Association

and West 90's/West 100's Neighborhood Coalition,


Dockets Nos. 98-7269, 98-7270.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

June 3, 1998

Argued April 29, 1998.

Page 100

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 101

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 102

Herald Price Fahringer, Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP, New York City (Erica T. Dubno, Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP; J. Michael Murray, Berkman, Gordon, Murray & DeVan, of counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Amsterdam Video, Inc., et al.

Beth Haroules, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Arthur N. Eisenberg, Norman Siegel, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, of counsel), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Rachel Hickerson, et al.

Leonard J. Koerner, Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York City (Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Gabriel Taussig, Elizabeth S. Natrella, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for Defendant-Respondent- Intervenor-Appellee Times Square Business Improvement District.

Wayne A. Cross, Dewey Ballantine LLP, New York City, for Defendants-Respondents-Intervenors-Appellees Center for the Community Interest, et al.


JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns an amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York (the "Zoning Amendment") regulating the zoning of "adult establishment[s]," as defined by the Zoning Amendment. The principal provisions of the Zoning Amendment limit the permissible locations of adult establishments to non-residential districts 1 and require that they be located--within the districts in which they are permitted--at least 500 feet away from any school, day care center, or house of worship; at least 500 feet from excluded districts; and at least 500 feet from one another. Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are patrons and owners of adult establishments within New York City who claim that the Zoning Amendment violates their rights to free expression under Article I, § 8 of the New York State Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a case involving a different set of plaintiffs, we recently upheld the Zoning Amendment against facial federal constitutional challenges under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Buzzetti

Page 103

v. City of New York, 140 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.1998).

The factual background of the Zoning Amendment is detailed both in Buzzetti and in prior state and federal decisions arising from the instant litigation, with which we assume familiarity. See Hickerson v. City of New York, 997 F.Supp. 418 (S.D.N.Y.1998); Hickerson v. City of New York, 932 F.Supp. 550 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Stringfellow's of New York, Ltd. v. City of New York, 171 Misc.2d 376, 653 N.Y.S.2d 801 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1996), aff'd, 241 A.D.2d 360, 663 N.Y.S.2d 812 (1st Dep't 1997), aff'd, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 671 N.Y.S.2d 406, 694 N.E.2d 407 (1998). The instant appeal is from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge ), dated March 6, 1998, which denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stay the enforcement of the Zoning Amendment. 2 Although at the heart of this litigation is a controversy over free expression, plaintiffs have already presented their free-speech claims to the New York courts. The only question before us is whether the New York courts' rejection of plaintiffs' state constitutional claims forecloses plaintiffs from relitigating, in the form of a First Amendment claim in federal court, the same issues that were resolved against them in state court. We agree with the district court that the "full faith and credit" statute prevents a federal court from revisiting the same issues that were decided against plaintiffs by the New York state courts, which provided plaintiffs with a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues. Accordingly, we affirm.



To continue reading