Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. City of Newark
| Decision Date | 26 April 1977 |
| Citation | 374 A.2d 502,150 N.J.Super. 14 |
| Parties | HAMAR THEATRES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEWARK, Gilbert J. Strong, Director of Licenses of City of Newark, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William J. Schwartz, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Newark, for defendants-appellants (Milton A. Buck, Corp. Counsel, Newark, attorney).
Robert L. Podvey, Newark, for plaintiff-respondent (Podvey & Sachs, Newark, attorneys for respondent; Kathleen C. Goger, Montclair, on the brief).
Before Judges MATTHEWS, SEIDMAN and HORN.
Plaintiff owns and operates a motion picture theater in the City of Newark. In January 1976 the municipal Director of Licenses advised plaintiff of his intention not to renew its license to operate the theater and set the matter down for a hearing. Such hearing was held following which the Director denied the license, finding that (1) applicant had failed to set forth in its application a 1972 plea of guilty to an accusation of maintaining a nuisance; (2) applicant had entered pleas of guilty in 1973 and 1976 to violations, respectively, of the Newark obscenity ordinance and of N.J.S.A. 2A:115--2, by exhibiting obscene material; (3) applicant was 'a consistent criminal offender whom the city does not want to hold a license,' and (4) a film shown in January 1976 was obscene.
Thereupon plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, which led, after a hearing, to a judgment reversing the denial of plaintiff's application for a license and ordering the issuance of such license forthwith.
Defendants appealed and we affirm.
Defendants contend that the license was properly denied because of plaintiff's failure to give full and correct answers on its application, and further, because it had been convicted in the past of showing obscene pictures.
As for the first contention, the trial judges found that the failure to set forth the 1972 conviction was, in light of the disclosure on the application of subsequent convictions, inconsequential and insufficient reason to refuse to issue the license. We agree.
With respect to the remaining ground asserted in justification of the denial of the license, it should be noted at the outset that Newark Revised Ordinances 5:8--13(a) provides:
When necessary for the furtherance of decency and good order or if the holder of any permit or license issued under this chapter, shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter, the director, division of licenses may suspend or revoke any permit or license issued under this chapter.
While this norm relates to the suspension or revocation of a license, it impliedly is applicable also to the issuance of a license. Adams Theatre Co. v. Keenan, 12 N.J. 267, 270, 96 A.2d 519 (1953). The ordinance, additionally, prohibits the showing of any motion picture that is 'lewd, obscene or indecent.' But see Wein v. Irvington, 126 N.J.Super. 410, 315 A.2d 35 (App.Div.1974), certif. den. 65 N.J. 287, 321 A.2d 248 (1974), on the preemption of the field of obscenity by the State.
The authority of a municipality to license and regulate theaters is not open to challenge. See N.J.S.A. 40:52--1(f). However, denial of a license because of prior obscenity convictions constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on the constitutionally protected right of free speech. The remedy for past abuses
* * * lies not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
4447 Corp. v. Goldsmith
...31 Ill.App.3d 630, 334 N.E.2d 190; Alexander v. City of St. Paul (1975), 303 Minn. 201, 227 N.W.2d 370; Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. City of Newark (1977), 150 N.J.Super. 14, 374 A.2d 502; City of Seattle v. Bittner (1973), 81 Wash.2d 747, 505 P.2d These decisions are informed by the central tea......
-
Cornflower Entertainment, Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp.
...Richardson, 287 So.2d 480 (La.1974); Alexander v. City of St. Paul, 303 Minn. 201, 227 N.W.2d 370 (1975); Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. City of Newark, 150 N.J.Super. 14, 374 A.2d 502 (1977); State ex rel. Field v. Hess, 540 P.2d 1165, 1170-71 (Okl.1975); City of Seattle v. Bittner, 81 Wash.2d 74......
-
People ex rel. Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.
...404 U.S. 1038, 92 S.Ct. 710, 30 L.Ed.2d 729; Alexander v. City of St. Paul, 303 Minn. 201, 227 N.W.2d 370; Hamar Theatres v. City of Newark, 150 N.J.Super. 14, 374 A.2d 502). These courts based their decisions on the prior restraint doctrine, stressing the effect that the action would have ......
-
West Gallery Corp. v. Salt Lake City Bd. of Com'rs
...60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).3 Alexander v. City of St. Paul, 303 Minn. 201, 227 N.W.2d 370 (1975); Hamar Theatres, Inc. v. City of Newark, 150 N.J.Super. 14, 374 A.2d 502 (1977); City of Delevan v. Thomas, 31 Ill.App.3d 630, 334 N.E.2d 190 ...