logo CityLand
      • Home
      • About CityLand
      • CityLand Sponsors
      • Filings & Decisions
      • Commentary
      • Archive
      • Resources
      • CityLaw
      • Current Issue

    Chumley’s Wins Right to Reopen


    Court Decisions  •  Liquor License  •  Greenwich Village, Manhattan
    08/17/2015   •    Leave a Comment

    Neighbors opposed the reopening of Chumley’s, a former speakeasy located on a residential block of the West Village. Chumley’s, a famous former speakeasy and literary hangout located at 86 Bedford Street in Greenwich Village, closed temporarily in 2007 in order to repair structural defects in its landmark-designated building. Chumley’s is part of the Greenwich Village Historic District. In May 2012 Chumley’s began the process to regain its liquor license and reopen. The reopened Chumley’s would be a 2,000-square-foot restaurant with 58 table seats, a standing bar, no sidewalk café, and it would play only recorded music as background. It would also close at 1:00 a.m. Sunday through Wednesday, and at 2:00 a.m. Thursday through Saturday.

    Because Chumley’s was located within 500 feet of at least three other establishments that served liquor, Chumley’s was required obtain approval by the State Liquor Authority. Chumley’s secured approval of Manhattan Community Board 2 and applied to the Authority for the license. The Authority granted the license after making the requisite finding that the license would be in the public interest.

    An association of neighbors, organized as Barfreebedford, sued to overturn the license in State Supreme Court. The lower court denied the petition and Barfreebedford appealed.

    The Appellate Division First Department affirmed the lower court and sustained the license. It ruled that the Authority had adequately considered the relevant factors listed in the statute in making its public interest finding. The court noted that the main concern of Barfreebedford was after-midnight noise by late-night visitors to the bar on Bedford Street. That issue had been adequately addressed in the requirements to keep the windows and doors closed, added security and early closings.

    Barfreebedford v. New York State Liquor Authority, 11 N.Y.S.3d 66 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2015)

    Share this:

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    Tags : barfreebedford, Manhattan Community Board 2, State Liquor Authority
    Category : Court Decisions

    Comment on this article

    Click here to cancel reply.

    Subscribe To Free Alerts

    In a Reader

    Desktop Reader Bloglines Google Live Netvibes Newsgator Yahoo! What's This?

    Follow Us on Social Media

    twitterfacebook

    Search

    Search by Category

      City Council
      CityLaw
      City Planning Commission
      Board of Standards & Appeals
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
      Economic Development Corporation
      Housing Preservation & Development
      Administrative Decisions
      Court Decisions
      Filings and Decisions
      CityLand Profiles

    Search by Date

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School | 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 | 212.431.2100 | Privacy | Terms | Code of Conduct | DMCA | Policies
    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.