Request to Change Method of Operation Form Revised January 2025

In 2025 the SLA modified its form to request a change in the Method of Operations required in allowing the SLA to approve dancing and live music in locations now available for dancing by the NYC zoning change, and seemingly approving surrendering its authority to Community Board stipulations and signalling approving conditions which violate the First Amendment as to Live Music.

<Posted and Updated March 2, 2025>

Additions: That Applicant required  to provide information on existing Method of Operation suggest that SLA does not have control on documents and correspondence relating to specific licenses. This suggests that SLA may not endorse all documents received with the License Numuber or Legacy Serial Number and date.

Additions: The new form does not indicate that a notice is  to be provided to the Community Board and further that new legislations allows an application to be filed concurrently with the notice. Apparently, some stipulations would not allow an Applicant to apply for a Change in Method of Operation.

In January 2025 SLA modified its form to Request a Change in the Method of Operation modifying the version that appeared in 2013. Both versions are shown below. SLA continues to delegate its authority to Community Boards and to suggest restrictions as to music violating the First Amendment.

The 2015 version requires that the Applicant provide the Method of Operation provisions in its existing Liquor License Application and “if there are stipulations on your license set by the Community Board or Municipality, submit a copy of the stipulation agreement with this application.” The new Form fails to note that Applicants must send notices to Community Boards.

As discussed elsewhere, were are unable to find any provisions of New York State law which allow the SLA  to delegate it license approval authority to a Community Board stipulation which limits the flexibility and authority of the SLA. To be clear, Community Boards do no have the legal status to litigate to enforce a stipulation – rather, the stipulations attempt to make it appear as if the SLA can enforce a stipulation.  It is clearly understood that the Community Boards  impose stipulations by essentially strong arming the applicants to hold up an application or to require full board consideration by the SLA. Many Applicant just routinely accept “no dancing” in a stipulation to avoid holding up an application.

Question: if the SLA decides that the stipulations are unreasonable or not constitutional, may the SLA just ignore the stipulations.

The Method of Operation form signals that the SLA is willing to impose restriction on live music which violate the First Amendment and invites Community Boards to do the same. New York City in the 1980’s lost litigation on these issues, and but the SLA suggests the propriety of these anti-content provisions. The Form requires Applicants to state the following as to Live Music:

Live Music (give details: e.g., rock bands, acoustic, jazz, etc.):

The 1980s litigation was focused on Cabaret Law type restrictions as to the type of music and number of musicians and implicitly favored classical over jazz music. The SLA questions are also completely out-of-date by suggest the  method of operation may include limits on “acoustic”  music. For example, many establishments may not easily accommodate acoustic pianos (space, tuning, maintenance) and most pianists will bring in their electronic pianos. Similarly, basses and guitars and even violins are largely performed on electronic instruments – and any restrictions as to acoustic music is a First Amendment violation. The issue is whether the Licensee will limit noise by sound reduction materials and  sound measurement etc. Also, implicit and unstated here is no “rap music” – Kendrick Lamar need not apply. The SLA invites these First Amendment violations.

One  wonders what Method of Operation  information the SLA compiles as to a particular licensee. The SLA at the same time has deleted Method of Operation information from it licenses database, omitting such information from it LAMP interface.

The 2013 Form:

The 2025 Form: