X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesseA state law banning sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools, churches and playgrounds can be applied even where the effect is to oust the establishment from a municipality, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. However, the burden to find another location for the adult- oriented business rests with the municipality, and the town alternatively can show that the market area is already served. Justice Gary Stein, writing for a unanimous Court, said that First Amendment tests to restrict the store owner’s free speech rights must be conducted at the trial level. “The relevant decision law demonstrates that the Law Division’s responsibilities on remand are formidable,” he wrote in Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, No. A-180-97, which upheld the Appellate Division’s ruling in the case last year. On remand, the Court said, the trial court should hear expert testimony regarding the market area and the availability of such sites. The lower court should also be guided by the availability of public transportation, access by car and geographical distribution of customers at similar type of stores. After that, Stein wrote, the court will have to determine whether such a site exists and satisfies the constitutional test of availability of alternative channels of communications. The ruling left open the question of exactly how the town of Saddle Brook — which sought to close Pleasure Plus, a sex shop owned by defendant A.B. Family Center Inc. — should proceed in finding an acceptable site in a neighboring town. The store’s owners fought the town’s 1995 efforts to shut it down, arguing that, under the law, there was no place in Saddle Brook where an adult-oriented business could operate. “We’re prepared to go to trial,” says Brian Chewcaskie, a lawyer for Saddle Brook and a partner at Fort Lee’s Gittleman, Muhlstock, Chewcaskie & Kim. “We believe that we are able to demonstrate that there are other sexually oriented businesse

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.