Stop restrictions on social dancing and live music in New York City!

Click here for the Petition

Questions and Answers

Petition Explanation

The Liquor Authority (SLA) currently enforces restrictions on live music and dance through its licensing process, even though nothing in its authorizing legislation requires the SLA to take these activities into consideration when issuing licenses. In other words, the SLA has assumed control over music and dance without legislative approval.

Across the City — following new 2024 zoning changes — thousands of licensees are now located in areas where live music and dancing are permitted by zoning. Yet, for many of them, their existing “method of operation” on file with the SLA does not list music or dancing. Under the SLA’s current rules, this would force thousands of licensees to file requests to modify their methods of operation — a time-consuming and often expensive process, frequently requiring attorneys.

Why is this objectionable?
This system creates unnecessary barriers for licensees while providing no real benefit to the public. Venues already operate under zoning and noise regulations, so there is no reason to tie music and dancing to liquor license conditions.

What change are we asking for?
We are asking the SLA to stop enforcing restrictions on live music and dance where zoning allows them. Because this does not require legislative action, the SLA can act immediately through a change in policy or rulemaking.

To address community concerns, any change could be made effective after a 90-day period, giving community boards time to file requests for reconsideration. Importantly, the burden should fall on the community boards to demonstrate why restrictions are necessary. Community boards are not legally empowered to enforce stipulations they negotiate with applicants, and they should not be treated as if they have such power. This change would restore balance by respecting zoning, reducing red tape, and placing responsibility where it belongs.

f the State Liquor Authority (SLA) does not act on its own to stop enforcing restrictions on live music and dancing, then the Legislature must step in. This requires amending the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Law to make it clear that the SLA has no power to impose restrictions on music and dancing where zoning already allows them.

Why is this necessary?
The SLA’s statute does not direct the agency to regulate music and dance, yet the SLA continues to use its licensing process to control them. Unless the SLA voluntarily removes these restrictions, only a legislative amendment can ensure that zoning—not liquor licensing—governs whether music and dancing are permitted.

Who is responsible?
The SLA is a state agency ultimately under the authority of the Governor. The Governor appoints the SLA Commissioners and has the power to direct the agency to change its policies. Within the Governor’s office, responsibility for the SLA lies with James Katz, Deputy Secretary for Economic Development & Workforce (contact via aide Nicole Migliore — nicole.migliore@exec.ny.gov).

Mailing address for James Katz:
Deputy Secretary for Economic Development & Workforce
NY Governor’s Office
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

What change are we asking for?
We are asking the Legislature to adopt legislation eliminating the SLA’s authority to impose music and dance restrictions where zoning permits these activities. This will align state law with zoning, reduce unnecessary burdens on licensees, and prevent the SLA from overreaching into cultural and artistic expression.

What is happening now?
Assembly Bill A7210, sponsored by Assembly Member Monique Chandler-Waterman (Assembly District 58 — chandlerwatermanm@nyassembly.gov), has been introduced in Albany. This bill represents a step forward in modifying the powers of the SLA. It has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce & Industry, and a companion bill may be introduced in the Senate. Our petition supports this effort and urges lawmakers to act.

Legislative oversight of the SLA:
Two committees in the Legislature are directly responsible for overseeing the SLA. These are important points of contact for reform:

  • Senate Investigations & Government Operations Committee — Chair: Senator James Skoufis (skoufis@nysenate.gov)

  • Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce & Industry — Chair: Assembly Member Al Stirpe (stirpea@nyassembly.gov)

Agency leadership:

  • The Honorable Lily M. Fan, Chair and Commissioner, New York State Liquor Authority
    Alfred E. Smith Building, 80 S. Swan St, Suite 900, Albany, NY 12210
    Email: press.office@sla.ny.gov

Take action:
We encourage you to email these legislators—along with Assembly Member Chandler-Waterman, the SLA Chair, and the Governor’s office—to voice your support for Assembly Bill A7210 and for removing the SLA’s power to restrict live music and dancing where zoning already permits it.

 
 

.

In New York City, because of its density, the majority of on-premises liquor license establishments are within 500 feet of another existing premise. Under ABC §64(7)(b), the issuance of a new license within 500 feet is prohibited. However, §64(7)(f) allows a license to be issued with the approval of the State Liquor Authority (SLA), provided a hearing or meeting is held.

The statutory language is confusing and often misread by novices. It is not helped by the fact that §64(7)(e), which immediately precedes it, contains a lengthy recitation of special parcels where the Legislature has granted exemptions by special legislation.

How the SLA applies the rule:
In practice, the SLA generally holds a hearing only if there is an objection from the community board, and even then it is discretionary. Hearings are not held in person; they are based on written submissions reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge. If the judge does not find in favor of the application, if the community board or other parties oppose, or if other issues require review, the matter is referred to the Members of the Authority for determination.

The effect of this process is to create delays and opportunities for spurious objections by community boards and individual community members. Even when those objections have no real bearing on zoning or public safety, they can slow approvals and add uncertainty for applicants.
Policy fix: Where the objection under the 500-foot law is based solely (or primarily) on the applicant’s intent to offer live music and/or patron dancing in a zoning-permitted location, the SLA should be able to approve on staff recommendation (Licensing Bureau) without convening a 500-foot hearing, absent independent public-safety or statutory concerns.

Why is this a problem?
Because most NYC establishments fall within 500 feet of another licensed premise, this rule often creates an added hurdle for nearly all applicants. Community boards can use the process to delay applications or extract restrictive stipulations, even when zoning permits the use. The impact is especially harsh where applicants have already invested heavily in leases, construction, and marketing, and urgently need the license to open.

What change are we asking for?
We are asking the Legislature to repeal the 500-foot rule from the ABC Law. Licensing decisions should be based on compliance with zoning and public safety—not on an arbitrary distance rule that forces redundant procedures and burdens applicants unnecessarily.

What would this achieve?

  • Remove duplicative procedures that overlap with zoning.

  • Reduce the ability to hold up applications through opposition filings.

  • Prevent costly delays for applicants already committed to opening.

  • Modernize the ABC Law to reflect NYC’s density and current planning/noise frameworks.

Oversight and responsibility:
Repeal requires legislative action. Oversight lies with the committees that supervise SLA matters:

  • Senate Investigations & Government Operations Committee — Chair: Senator James Skoufis (skoufis@nysenate.gov)

  • Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce & Industry — Chair: Assembly Member Al Stirpe (stirpea@nyassembly.gov)

Agency leadership (SLA contact):

  • The Honorable Lily M. Fan, Chair and Commissioner, New York State Liquor Authority
    Alfred E. Smith Building, 80 S. Swan St, Suite 900, Albany, NY 12210
    Email: press.office@sla.ny.gov

Take action:
Email the committee chairs and the SLA Chair to urge repeal of the 500-foot rule—and in the interim, to adopt the staff-level approval policy where objections are solely about live music and dancing in zoning-permitted areas.

References:

  • New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §64(7)(b) and §64(7)(f).

  • New York State Liquor Authority guidance on the 500-foot law.

 
 

City officials sometimes say they lack authority to regulate community boards (CBs) and that only a City Charter amendment could alter their role. That position is overstated. CBs are advisory bodies, not enforcement agencies. They lack standing to sue and cannot enforce “stipulations.”¹

Accordingly, in their advisory capacity CBs have no legal authority to coerce applicants into stipulations that purport to restrict future modifications of a venue’s method of operation absent CB approval. Such conditions exceed their statutory role and amount to an improper delegation of regulatory power. The City Council is the proper legislative body to prohibit inclusion or enforcement of such provisions.

The Council has previously characterized its post-Cabaret-Law role narrowly. In Resolution 1728 (2021)—which urged zoning changes to expand venues where dancing and live music are permitted—the Council claimed it had already “done all it could” when it repealed the Cabaret Law by passing Introduction 1652-A (2017). That framing was self-serving. The Council knew the State Liquor Authority (SLA) retained licensing jurisdiction and enforcement of license conditions under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.² Disclaiming further responsibility was a political choice to defer to CB practice, not a legal limit on Council power.

At the same time, the Council routinely acts as if it retains supervisory authority over CBs. In 2025 it introduced Int. 1315-2025 (Communications & Transparency Requirements), widely supported and co-sponsored, requiring CBs to publish monthly newsletters and provide real-time videoconferencing.³ This demonstrates that the Council considers itself empowered to prescribe operational requirements for boards.

CBs are not autonomous: Borough Presidents appoint half of each board’s members,⁴ and Council Members nominate the other half.⁵ This appointment structure underscores that boards operate within a framework of oversight and political accountability—not as independent decision-making entities.

What change are we asking for?
Have the City Council limit community boards from blocking live music and dancing by adopting local legislation and rules that:

  • Reaffirm that CB recommendations are advisory only and cannot be used to condition support on “no dancing,” “no amplified instruments,” genre limits, or other content-based provisions when zoning allows music and dancing.

  • Prohibit CB-imposed stipulations (or “no-modification without CB consent” clauses) from being included in City submissions or treated as binding.

  • Direct City agencies not to enforce CB stipulations that exceed or conflict with zoning, noise, fire/life-safety, or other applicable laws.

  • Standardize the City’s response to SLA notices so comments are tied to enumerated, content-neutral health/safety/compliance factors—not the mere presence of live music or dancing.

Why this matters:
These steps stop CBs from functioning as de-facto gatekeepers over lawful cultural activity, reduce costly delays and last-minute “stipulation” negotiations, and align City practice with zoning, noise, and safety laws—while preserving CBs’ legitimate advisory role.

Notes (citations you provided):

  1. NYC Charter §2800(d): community boards “shall be advisory bodies.”

  2. N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §§17, 64, 106 (SLA licensing and enforcement authority).

  3. NYC Council, Int. 1315-2025 (Communications & Transparency Requirements) — see NYC Council Legistar.

  4. NYC Charter §2800(a): Borough President appoints one-half of CB members.

  5. Id.: remaining members nominated by the Council Members representing the district.

License applicants are required to complete a form that specifically asks whether there will be live music or dancing on the premises.

The problem is that the form suggests—improperly—that music or dancing are relevant factors in whether a license should be granted. More troubling, it asks for inappropriate details such as whether the music is “rock bands, acoustic, jazz,” which facially conflict with First Amendment protections. Additionally, requiring applicants to disclose whether instruments are acoustic or electric is irrelevant, since venues are already required to comply with local noise regulations. Many musicians rely on amplified instruments as a matter of artistic choice, so treating amplification as suspect is itself a further First Amendment violation.

If an applicant selects No, then their approved method of operation will not include music or patron dancing. That means they cannot later offer live music or allow dancing without going back to the State Liquor Authority to request a change.

Why is this objectionable?
Because these questions effectively give the State Liquor Authority control over music and dance—even when zoning already allows them. This extends state control into areas of cultural and artistic expression, which should not be a condition of obtaining a liquor license.

What change are we asking for?
We are asking the SLA—at a minimum, even without legislative change—to remove these questions from the license application and to clarify, in a rule, that silence as to live music and dancing does not mean that they are prohibited. After all, nobody expects a restaurant to list “desserts” in its method of operation in order to serve a slice of cake.

 

Other Questions and Answers

Venues where dancing and live music were not previously allowed under zoning were also

restricted by the SLA’s method of operation conditions. Reform of zoning did not remove these

SLA restrictions, which remain in effect. Also, although the City did not study this in 2024, many zoning districts (Use Group 12) allowed dancing and live music, but the SLA Methods of Operation still prohibited live music and dancing.

Applicants for liquor licenses are required to answer a series of questions regarding music and dancing. The application form asks:

  • Will the premises have music? (Yes / No)
    • If yes, the applicant must check all that apply: Recorded, DJ, Juke Box, Karaoke, Live Music (with details such as genre or type, e.g., rock bands, acoustic, jazz), or Outdoor Music (Live, DJ, Recorded).
  • Will the premises use the services of an event promoter? (Yes / No)
  • Will the premises permit dancing? (Yes / No)
    • If yes, the applicant must state who will be permitted to dance: patrons, employees for entertainment, or both.

If these questions are left blank or answered “no,” the applicant is deemed not authorized to provide live music or to permit dancing. In practice, the very structure of the form establishes a presumption that music and dancing are privileges to be narrowly granted rather than normal features of licensed premises.

This framework effectively invites community boards to scrutinize, object to, or condition license applications based on music and dancing. Boards can — and often do — use applicants’ answers to argue for restrictive stipulations, including outright prohibitions or limitations on live or amplified music, dancing, or even on the types of music permitted.

At a deeper level, these questions themselves are problematic:

  • No statutory authority. Nothing in the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law — the statute creating the State Liquor Authority — authorizes the SLA to regulate live music, amplified music, or patron dancing. The SLA’s jurisdiction is over the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Its insertion of cultural and expressive activities into the licensing process is not grounded in statute.
  • First Amendment conflict. Questions about “live music (give details: e.g., rock bands, acoustic, jazz, etc.)” directly implicate expressive freedom. The government should not be in the business of distinguishing among music genres, any more than it should ask whether a restaurant intends to serve vegan or non-vegan food. More critically, this requirement is in direct tension with the Chiasson v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs decisions of the 1980s, which expressly recognized that live musical performance constitutes protected expression under the First Amendment. By conditioning license approval on disclosure of music type or style, the SLA intrudes into a sphere of protected artistic activity that courts have already ruled cannot be subjected to discretionary regulation.¹
  • Noise already regulated. Concerns about amplified sound or excessive noise fall within the jurisdiction of the City of New York, which enforces detailed Noise Control Code provisions (NYC Administrative Code, Title 24, ch. 2, subch. 6). Using SLA licensing to address noise issues duplicates and conflicts with the City’s established regulatory scheme.
  • Conflict with City policy. New York City has affirmatively authorized live music and dancing in eating and drinking establishments in numerous zoning districts — especially since the repeal of the Cabaret Law. Yet the SLA’s application process invites community boards to restrict music and dancing in those same locations, creating a direct conflict between City policy and State agency practice.
  • Pretext for local restrictions. By embedding music and dancing in the license application, the SLA gives community boards leverage to demand stipulations on activities that are otherwise lawful, creating a shadow regulatory scheme beyond what state law explicitly authorizes.
  • Setting the stage for overregulation. Even before an applicant opens its doors, the licensing form locks music and dancing into the compliance framework. This allows regulatory bodies and community boards to treat live music, amplified sound, and patron dancing as conditional, exceptional, and subject to suppression.

In short, the SLA’s inclusion of music and dancing questions in its license application is not a neutral administrative measure. It is the foundation upon which onerous restrictions have been built — restrictions that lack statutory basis, conflict with existing City regulations, duplicate noise enforcement, and directly contravene First Amendment protections recognized in Chiasson.

¹ Chiasson v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 132 Misc.2d 640 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1986), aff’d, 132 A.D.2d 202 (1st Dep’t 1987), aff’d, 71 N.Y.2d 859 (1988) (holding that musical performance is a form of protected expression entitled to First Amendment safeguards).

Nothing in the law establishing the SLA specfically allows the regulation of music and dancing. Indeed, nothing in the law uses the phrase method of operations. The SLA under ABC Law § 64-A  specifies certain factors that may be considered in issuing a license, but music and dancing are not among those factor.

It is recommended that one write email or letters directly, for that will have a greater impact than signing a peition.

The SLA is part of the Executive Branch of New York State, headed by the Governor. The SLA is supervised by James Katz,  Deputy Secretary for Economic Development & Workforce, NY Governor’s Office, [nicole.migliore@exec]. 

The responsible State Senate Committee is Senate Investigations & Government Operations Committee, Chair, Senator James Skoufis [Email: skoufis@nysenate.gov]. 

The responsible Assembly Committee is the Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce & Industry, Chair, Assembly Member, Al Stirpe [Email: stirpea@nyassembly.gov]

As to the New York City, it is suggested that until the election, emails be directed to Council Member Keith Powers at kpowers@council.nyc.gov. One might also contact the Mayor through the Office of Nightlife, if one can locate their email. 

The Honorable Lily M. Fan, Chair and Commissioner, New York State Liquor Authority,Alfred E. Smith Building, 80 S. Swan St, Suite 900,Albany, NY 12210,Email: press.office@sla.ny.gov

The secretary appears to act a the executive officer: Donald Roper, Secretary to the Authority, New York State Liquor Authority, Alfred E. Smith Building,80 S. Swan St, Suite 900, Albany, NY 12210, Email: RoperD@sla.ny.gov

The 500-Foot Rule and Community Board Power

The “500‑Foot Rule” is codified in New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 64(7)(b). It mandates heightened scrutiny by the SLA if three or more on‑premises liquor licenses exist within 500 feet of a proposed establishment.

Legislative origin: Enacted in 1993, the rule responded to public safety concerns about organizational abuse—particularly clustering of bars by motorcycle gangs and criminal groups. The Governor’s approval memorandum states:

“This bill is necessary to prevent the further concentration of problematic premises in already oversaturated neighborhoods, particularly where motorcycle gangs and criminal enterprises have sought to dominate areas through the clustering of bars and clubs.” (Governor’s Approval Memo, L.1993, ch.592)

Practical consequences in NYC: Due to dense licensing, it is virtually impossible to open new venues outside the 500-foot threshold in New York City. In practice, this has negatively affected applicants and made it especially difficult to obtain approval for live music and patron dancing. Concurrently, community boards had already, just a few years earlier, succeeded in passing zoning law restrictions that barred dancing and live music—layering additional regulatory barriers.

How the process works now: While the statute does not always require a hearing, in practice the SLA holds a 500-Foot Hearing whenever the community board registers objections. The SLA’s procedural guidance states:

“Hearings are not held in person… Review is based solely on written materials submitted by the applicant and municipality… If there is no opposition and no issues, the application proceeds through the Licensing Bureau. But if the ALJ does not find in favor of the application or there are objections or other issues, the matter is referred to the Members of the Authority… Opposition does not necessarily mean disapproval, and the Authority may disapprove even without opposition.”

This procedural dynamic gives community boards quasi‑veto power. Even though opposition alone doesn’t guarantee a rejection, it almost always compels a more onerous review. Applicants with no board opposition are often approved swiftly via the Licensing Bureau, while those with objections are forwarded to the politically sensitive SLA Members.

Strategic leverage via delay: Because of anticipated delays, community boards frequently extract restrictive stipulations—such as prohibitions on live/amplified music or patron dancing—from applicants eager to avoid protracted uncertainty.

Zoning reforms lift ban: Most importantly, as of mid-2024, the City Council enacted zoning reforms under the “City of Yes for Economic Opportunity” initiative, removing outdated restrictions that previously banned dancing and live entertainment in many bars and restaurants. These changes confirm that zoning no longer legally prevents such performance activity.

Background

In March 2023, we conducted a detailed analysis of the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) license database then available on the SLA website. It was possible to download the entire dataset to our local system as an Excel file in moments. From this, we extracted the New York City records and cleaned and regularized the inconsistent Method of Operation data. To address this, we normalized the entries, corrected misspellings and inconsistent phrasing, and treated any activity not explicitly listed as prohibited. This made it possible not only to measure the extent to which live music and patron dancing were permitted or prohibited under license terms, but also to identify constitutionally questionable restrictions—such as limits on the number of musicians, the type of music that could be performed, and even prohibitions on amplified music and normal instruments such as electric pianos, guitars, and basses.

Methodology

We focused on all active liquor license records for the five New York City counties. Non-relevant license types (such as package stores or grocery licenses) were excluded, leaving only on-premises licenses (OPB, OPL, OPW). The “Days/Hours of Operation” and “Other” columns were then reviewed, since these contain the Method of Operation restrictions.

Even with the inconsistencies in the database and its misuse of the “Method of Operation” label, once normalized the entries yielded a reliable picture of widespread restrictions.

Findings from March 2023 Analysis of NYC Licenses

  • On-Premises Licenses (bars, restaurants, clubs): 11,257

  • Patron Dancing: 278 licenses explicitly allowed it; 2,314 explicitly prohibited it; about 10,979 implicitly prohibited it (i.e., if dancing was not listed, it was treated as disallowed).

  • Live Music: 945 licenses explicitly allowed it; 361 allowed it with conditions (e.g., acoustic-only, limits on musicians or instruments, private events); 1,032 explicitly prohibited it; about 9,134 implicitly prohibited it (i.e., absence of live music in the Method of Operation meant it was not permitted).

Overall, the analysis showed that live music was disallowed in more than 9,000 of the 11,000 licenses, and patron dancing was permitted in fewer than 300 establishments. Notably, SLA prohibited patron dancing in many locations where dancing was previously allowed under City zoning prior to the 2024 rezoning.

This analysis was shared with officials at the Department of City Planning (DCP), the Office of Nightlife, certain City Council members, and the SLA itself—none of whom disputed its accuracy.

Failure to Comply with ABC Law §110-c

In 2019, the Legislature enacted Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §110-c, sponsored by Assembly Member Deborah Glick and Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal. The law requires SLA to make Method of Operation data, including stipulations, publicly available.

SLA complied briefly. But in 2023–24, when it migrated its data to the Liquor Authority Mapping Project (LAMP), it removed the Method of Operation fields from the downloadable database—shrouding its licensing practices in secrecy. Without this information, policymakers and the public cannot evaluate SLA’s practices, understand the conditions imposed on licensees, or consider reforms to prevent SLA from continuing to prohibit live music and patron dancing.

SLA apparently retains Method of Operation data internally, yet it has delayed restoring public access until, at the earliest, 2026. This delay is unjustified. It is implausible that SLA would need to manually examine over 12,000 licenses to recreate data it previously published. The information could easily be exported and released.

FOIL responses also revealed that SLA’s internal records are disorganized and unsystematic. Approved Methods of Operation often appear only as handwritten notes on applications. SLA has been unable to produce complete files even for a small number of modification requests, and it does not appear to issue licensees a standard confirmation of their approved Method of Operation. These shortcomings undermine both SLA’s operations and compliance with §110-c.

When considering the method of operations in a liquor license, the applicant is required to first notify the community board within 30 days of filing with the SLA. The community boards then provide their recommendation to the SLA. But, often, a Community Board will  pressure the applicant to sign a stipulation wherein the applicant agrees to certain conditions, such as no dancing or no live music.  The applicant is required to agree not to change the proposed method of operations. The SLA then has its hands  locked and will a generally approve the conditions in the  stipulation.

The SLA, by routinely accepting stipulations negotiated by Community Boards and incorporating them into license conditions, has effectively delegated part of its licensing authority to bodies that the Legislature expressly made advisory only. Because these stipulations are often signed under threat of delay or denial, they cannot be considered voluntary, and the practice risks being ultra vires and an unlawful delegation of power.

See the NY Times article at  “Is New York Becoming the City That Sleeps?, April 17, 2025. “ : “There are ways to get a license without a community board recommendation, like appealing directly to the State Liquor Authority, though it can take several months for an application to be considered. In most cases, the quickest route to approval is agreeing to terms — such as earlier closing hours — in exchange for board support.”

See See Post Re SLA Regulations

City Authority and Community Boards

City officials frequently contend that they lack authority to regulate community boards, citing the City Charter as the source of such boards’ creation and maintaining that only a Charter amendment could alter their role. That position is overstated. Community boards are not independent municipal entities vested with enforcement powers; rather, they are advisory bodies. As such, they lack standing to commence litigation and cannot sue to enforce stipulations.¹

Accordingly, community boards do not possess the legal authority, in their advisory capacity, to coerce license applicants into stipulations that purport to restrict future modifications of method of operation absent board approval. Such conditions exceed their statutory role and amount to an improper delegation of regulatory power. The City Council is the appropriate legislative body to prohibit the inclusion of such provisions.

The Council itself has previously characterized its role narrowly. In Resolution 1728 (2021), which urged amendment of the zoning law to expand venues where dancing and live music are permitted, the Council declared that its authority had been exhausted when it repealed the Cabaret Law by passing Introduction 1652-A (2017):

“WHEREAS, the Council did all it could do to legalize dancing and entertainment in eating and drinking establishments when it repealed the Cabaret Law by passing Introduction 1652-A for the year 2017, to repeal the Cabaret Law and legalize dancing and entertainment”

This assertion was somewhat self-serving. By framing the repeal of the Cabaret Law as the outer limit of its authority, the Council avoided confronting the entrenched role of community boards in conditioning liquor license applications. The Council was certainly aware that the State Liquor Authority (SLA) retained jurisdiction over licensing and enforcement of stipulations under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.² Its decision to disclaim further responsibility functioned less as a statement of incapacity than as a political choice to defer to community board practice.

Even so, the Council often acts as if it retains supervisory authority over community boards. For instance, in 2025 the Council introduced Int. 1315-2025 — Communications & Transparency Requirements, a measure widely supported and co-sponsored by many Council Members.³ The bill would require community boards to distribute monthly newsletters on upcoming meetings and hearings and to provide real-time videoconferencing for public access. The very introduction and broad sponsorship of this legislation underscores that the Council considers itself empowered to prescribe operational requirements for boards.

Moreover, community boards are not autonomous: Borough Presidents appoint half of each board’s members under the City Charter,⁴ with Council Members nominating the other half.⁵ This appointment structure further demonstrates that boards function within a framework of oversight and political accountability, not as independent decision-making entities.

By parity of reasoning, if the Council can legislate transparency and communications obligations, and if Borough Presidents and Council Members exercise appointment powers, then the Council can likewise prohibit community boards from conditioning liquor license approvals on stipulations that restrict live music, amplified sound, or patron dancing, or on provisions limiting applicants from later seeking to modify their method of operation without the permission of the community board.

Notes

  1. NYC Charter §2800(d): Community boards “shall be advisory bodies” with limited functions including service delivery review and land use recommendations.

  2. See N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §§17, 64, 106 (vesting SLA with licensing authority and enforcement of license conditions).

  3. NYC Council, Int. 1315-2025: Communications & Transparency Requirements (2025) (legislative history and sponsorship records available via NYC Council Legistar database).

  4. NYC Charter §2800(a): “The borough president shall appoint one-half of the members of each community board.”

  5. Id. (remaining members nominated by the Council Members representing the district.)

This question is best answered by following the links below. Remember that Community Boards may always recomment to the SLA that certain conditions be imposed  on applicants. But, here the Community Boards go further, and refuse to do anything unless the applicant signs a stipulation. 

 

Community Board 3 (Manhattan)
“VOTE: TITLE: Community Board 3 Recommendation To Deny Unless Stipulations Agreed To—Stipulations Attached” (appears in Feb, Mar, Apr 2025 minutes).
Link (Feb 2025): https://www.nyc.gov/assets/manhattancb3/downloads/minutes/2025/minutes2025-02.pdf

Community Board 2 (Manhattan)
Dec 2019: “…recommends denial… unless those conditions and stipulations agreed to by the applicant are incorporated into the ‘Method of Operation’ on the SLA license.”
Link: https://nyc.gov/html/mancb2/downloads/pdf/fullboard_2019/12%20December%202019.pdf

Community Board 4 (Manhattan)
Dec 2015: “Denial unless all stipulations agreed to by applicant/owner are part of the method of operation.”
Link: https://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb4/downloads/pdf/2015%20PDFs/december-2015/06%20BLP%20Letter%20to%20SLA%2076%209th%20Ave%2C%20Floors%204-5%2C%208%2C%2011%2C%2014-15%20-%20Restaurant%20Associates%2C%20LLC.pdf

Queens Community Board 2
Dec 2024: Committee minutes note, “They have signed stips.” (re: Method of Operation change).
Link: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/queenscb2/downloads/pdf/2025/December-11-2024-City-Services-and-Public-Safety-Committee-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

State Liquor Authority Records
Nov 2024 Detailed Licensing Agenda: “The Community Board stipulated the following hours of operation: Sunday–Wednesday 11am–11pm and Thursday–Saturday 11am–12am.”
Link: https://sla.ny.gov/11202024-full-board-meeting-detailed-licensing-agenda

Live Music and Dance in NYC Restaurants Why Musicians and Dancers Should Care About Liquor License Restrictions

New York City in 2024 changed zoning laws to allow live music and social dancing, having earlier in 2017 ended the cabaret license. But the State Liquor Authority (SLA) still restricts restaurants from presenting live music and patron dancing unless these activities are allowed in their license, perpetuating cabaret-law- type restrictions.

Live music and dancing are prohibited under the SLA’s Method of Operation rules in over 9,000 restaurant licenses across NYC. Unless legalized, these establishments cannot hire musicians, advertise shows, allow any dancing, allow cabaret singers, or charge cover fees.

Why Restrictions Affect Musicians

§  Free Expression – Restrictions suppress artistic rights and public access to live music.

§  Limit Opportunities – Illegal venues mean fewer options and opportunities.

§  Limit Audiences – Restrictions stop musicians from reaching new fans.

§  Amplification – Even in venues where live music is allowed, SLA often prohibits amplification, excluding common electric instruments like electric keyboards and guitars.

§  Publicity – Where live music is prohibited, advertising an event may give grounds to the SLA to issue a violation on the spot.

Why Patron Dancing Matters

§  Gateway – Social dancing, restricted by the SLA, is often a gateway into jazz and live music

Fan Base – Social dancers frequently become lasting fans of musicians and increase numbers at gigs.

§  Active Listeners – Social dancers actively engage with the music, giving energy and feedback to performers.

§  Increase Audiences – Social dancing expands audiences and draws in more customers.

§  New Dance Spaces – Restaurants provide new spaces to dancers outside of dance studios.

Why Restrictions Matter to Restaurants

§  Legalization doesn’t require restaurants to host music every night, but it gives them the option to do so when it makes sense.

§  Better Business – Live music attracts new customers and encourages them to stay longer.

§  Advertising & Cover Charges – Without legalization, restaurants can’t advertise live music or dancing, limiting income for venues, musicians, and dance organizers.

This is about free expression, more options for musicians and restaurants, and supporting NYC Nightlife.

Support Live Music and Dance in Restaurants – Support Musicians’ Rights

Join the Coalition of Musicians and Dancers to

Eliminate Regulations Against Music and Dancing

NYC Dance and Music Regulation – Home

License Application Form

Petition

The Cabaret Law was repealed, and zoning has been amended.
Left untouched: the Liquor Authority’s regulation of music and dancing.

We New Yorkers who enjoy dancing and live music petition the Governor, the Liquor Authority, and other State and City officials to:

• Stop the Liquor Authority from enforcing restrictions on live music and dance when allowed by NYC zoning and noise regulations.
• Adopt legislation eliminating the power of the Liquor Authority to impose dancing and music restrictions when allowed by NYC zoning and noise regulations.
• Repeal the so-called “500-foot rule,” which enables community boards to pressure license applicants.
• Have the City Council limit community boards from blocking live music and dancing.
• Require the Liquor Authority to remove references to dancing and live music from license applications, so it’s clear these are not criteria for approval.

Live music and dancing are prohibited under the SLA’s Method of Operation rules in over 9,000 restaurant licenses across NYC. Unless legalized, these establishments cannot hire musicians, advertise shows, allow any dancing, allow cabaret singers, or charge cover fees.

Join New Yorkers and the Coalition of Musicians and Dancers to Eliminate Regulations Against Music and Dancing
Name
Checkboxes
1 / ?