You are here: / / AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED...

AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the provisions of the Tax Law which allow the imposition of an amusement tax and a cabaret tax were not unconstitutional either facially or as applied to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs operate a men’s entertainment club featuring topless dancers (Hustler Club). The Tax Law includes exemptions for certain types of entertainment, i.e., dramatic or musical art performances. Plaintiffs argued the exemptions should apply to the adult entertainment at the club, as well. In rejecting the constitutional arguments, the court wrote:

Here, the Tax Laws are laws “of general application” … . The Amusement Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny place where any facilities for entertainment, amusement, or sports are provided” (Tax Law § 1101[d][10]), and the Cabaret Tax applies to sales at “[a]ny roof garden, cabaret or other similar place which furnishes a public performance for profit” (Tax Law § 1101[d][12]). The Tax Laws “ha[ve] not selected a narrow group to bear fully the burden of the tax” … , since the taxes imposed on plaintiffs are equally applicable to many other types of entertainment and recreational activities, including sporting events, car races, amusement parks, arcades, zoos, animal performances, and magic acts … . Nor are the performances of the sort presented at the Hustler Club “singled out for special treatment”… based on their erotic, sexual, or adult nature. The performances merely happen to fall under the very broad categories of “entertainment” or “amusement,” for purposes of the Amusement Tax, and “public performance for profit,” for purposes of the Cabaret Tax. CMSG Rest. Group, LLC v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07280, 1st Dept 11-3-16

TAX LAW (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/AMUSEMENT TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/CABARET TAX (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)/ADULT ENTERTAINMENT (AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB; TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DRAMATIC OR MUSICAL ART PERFORMANCES ARE PROPERLY NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CLUB)

You might also like
“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer Not Obligated to Cover Loss Occasioned by Bankruptcy Proceedings in Mexico
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
Redaction of Information Which Could Possibly Endanger Witnesses in a Homicide Investigation Is Required
Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract
PLAINTIFF CAN PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY’S ALLEGED USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY FORGED DOCUMENT IN LITIGATION IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE ALLEGING AN ANTI-GAY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (FIRST DEPT).
AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ACCEPTING A VERDICT BEFORE REQUESTED TESTIMONY WAS READ BACK TO THE JURY WAS... VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY...