Thursday, April 28, 2016

Report: No Fun on Ludlow Street sues the LES Dwellers for defamation


No Fun, a bar-restaurant at 161 Ludlow St., has filed a $2 million defamation lawsuit against community group LES Dwellers, the Post reports today.

The bar says the group ran afoul of the law when it papered the neighborhood with fliers falsely claiming that it didn’t have a certificate of occupancy and was running a rowdy nightclub. The move was part of an unsuccessful bid to torpedo No Fun’s liquor-license renewal application, documents state.

“Defendants narrow-minded intolerance and disdain for people who do not share their values and worldview (yet patronize their local businesses) is the driving force behind their quest to destroy any neighborhood establishments that they believe are patronized by the ‘bridge and tunnel’ crowd,” the bar’s owner, John Pierce, seethes in the suit.

LES Dwellers founder Diem Boyd told the Post that "this complaint is meritless legal harassment."

No Fun was raided last fall in a coordinated NYPD multiagency sting on Ludlow Street, as BoweryBoogie reported.

Per the Post, the bar between Houston and Stanton has been fined almost $20,000 by the State Liquor Authority in the last years.

Previously on EV Grieve:
'11 Minutes of Hell' on the Lower East Side (56 comments)

21 comments:

  1. Good. Someone needs to rein in the LES Dwellers. I'm over their hypersensitivity and BS tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How pathetic is this bar? I mean seriously. All you're going to do is add fuel to the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, it sure looks like John Pierce reads (and comments) on EVGrieve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The LES Dwellers don't control the liquor license process, so this is really a freedom of speech issue. If the bar is been fine $20,000 in the last couple years and obviously they have a problem which the LES Dwellers have a legitimate right to inform the public about. Just take one look at that long line of SantaCon drunkards and tell me this bar doesn't have a problem with rowdy customers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I personally know Johnny Pierce for close to 20 years. My friend has integrity and has been a member of the East village for more than 25 years. He loves his community. You can find him in his bar early in the day taking care of upkeep. He takes the safety of his patrons very seriously. He pays a ton of taxes and treatshis employees very well. He is in frequent contact with local law enforcement to make sure that the neighborhood is safe for the community and his patrons. He is always monitoring what is happening. He doesn't over serve his customers. You want to know how you know that- go online and read reviews. You are asked to leave or not admitted if you have had too much to drink. There was a true nuisance bar next door to his place for many years and this may be part of the problem- that bar has since been closed down. I live in the lower east side- I am
    Plaqued by drunks and Santa Con in my neighborhood. I wish the bars near me were as diligent about addressing possible issues as Johnny is. I'm proud of my friend. If you have an issue with your neighbor- you talk to your neighbor, you do not immediately escalate a world war. My friend Johnny is not a litigious fellow. Your (our) neighborhood has changed- I'm older now too, yes the kids get on my nerves, but they are doing what young people do, if you are living in a rent stabilized apartment and cannot deal- maybe it is time that you move to the suburbs where you can enjoy peace and quiet. With Mr. Purple on that street this summer - it is only going to get worse. Be careful what you wish for, you can close NO FUN down and chances are u are just playing whack a mole. Play nice- get to know Johnny. Offer solutions. He is a reasonable man. The fact that nothing can stay in business except for bars in our neighborhood has more to do with rent, than with the bar owners- maybe you should be going after the landlords instead or the politicians who allow unfettered development.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not sure No Fun realizes this but they just "scorched earth"every egregious bar / nightclub owner out of Hell Square in their attempt to take down the Dwellers. LMAO! This was a huge tactical error.

    My $ is on the Dwellers. Grab your popcorn folks and watch the Dwellers march forward and take no prisoners.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I support the Dwellers in their efforts to improve conditions in their neighborhood. I think they've had a positive impact. Don't know the details of this situation but I have heard them speak at SLA committee meetings and they are pretty thorough.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anon 1:50 -

    "if you are living in a rent stabilized apartment and cannot deal- maybe it is time that you move to the suburbs where you can enjoy peace and quiet."

    With this statement, you lose all credibility. You do realize not all residents who are tired of this drunken hell are rent stabilized, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If what LES says is true, then it's not libel or slander, and the bar owner ought to shut up & spend more time trying to be the "good neighbor" he supposedly wants to be, and less time being dial-a-lawyer jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @2:15 how do you figure? You do realize that even if they win, it is egregiously expensive to defend a lawsuit. I cannot imagine it is an organization that is brimming with cash, so the individual defendants are going to have to foot many, many thousands of dollars. For example, unless Boyd has some rather deep pockets, she's likely effectively bankrupt now.

    Unless the Dwellers can prove that every defamatory statement or allegation is true (and it is an affirmative defense in a slander/libel suit meaning the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof) they have a real problem. If you try to mess with how people make a living, you had better damn well make sure that you're 100% kosher yourself, otherwise you'll get your own turn.

    Even if you meticulously document the truth of your allegations and carefully weigh what you say to make sure that everything said and written is the whole and absolute truth, you may still get sued. You may win the suit after paying through the nose for your lawyer, and you'd be an idiot to consider yourself some kind of winner in any capacity for getting into that situation, but better than losing. But, if you're just going off half cocked and acting like a cowboy and saying anything you can to sensationalize your cause, well, then that's going to be even worse.

    So, this is a pretty funny looking victory for the Dwellers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @1:50pm: Oh, please! Stop dragging "rent stabilized" and "move to the suburbs" into this - it's a brain-dead response. People (whether rent stabilized or not) do not deserve to live in drunk-land, ESPECIALLY if they were there BEFORE it *became* drunk-land.

    You say you're "older" now (so why aren't you in suburbia, as you recommend?). And you claim long friendship with the owner of this place, who you say "loves his community" - so why don't you have a word with him about this? He could run a successful business without dissing everyone else in the neighborhood. And maybe mention to him that the way he's proceeding with this lawsuit does NOT make anyone think he "loves his community" - in fact, quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @:56 PM
    You got the whole thing backwards, the defendants LES Dwellers) don't need to prove anything it's the plaintive that bar, that has to show a loss of income from the actions by the defendant. Only if they prove to have a real case (which I greatly doubt) would the defendants have to show a good reason for such actions. When this bar loses and they will, the defendants can counter sue them for court fees and pain and suffering. This is a really foolish move by the bar, bad publicity and will sour any good will they actually may have in the neighborhood. This could also set a sample case for other residents to sue loud nightlife businesses and win. Most jury members like a good nights sleep and will side with the residents.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If the Dwellers need cash for a defense they'll raise it quick. Count me as a donor. And ultimately the bar is gonna pick up the legal bill for them (when the Dwellers win).

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1:50pm has a problem with rent stablized tenants.

    For a "longtime" LES head Johnny sure is sensitive. Btw what's with the asking someone to leave if they've had "too much to drink" crap? How 'bout not serving someone so much alcohol they act in such way that you ask them to leave. I spend $40 in drinks at your place and you ask me to leave? Fuck you! I'm going somewhere else. It is perfectly fine to get drunk as long as you don't bother anyone else as you do. I personally like to see at least one harmless drunk when I go to a dive/y bar. By "drunk" I don't mean the same person or three people I mean a different one every night.

    ReplyDelete
  15. [I]f you are living in a rent stabilized apartment and cannot deal- maybe it is time that you move to the suburbs where you can enjoy peace and quiet.

    This comment smacks of the woman from Montana who commented that anyone who can't enjoy the noise from Poco's "legendary boozy brunch" "needs to move to Brooklyn."

    ReplyDelete
  16. "f you are living in a rent stabilized apartment and cannot deal- maybe it is time that you move to the suburbs where you can enjoy peace and quiet."

    The "move to" line. Sigh. EOS.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One day I'll move...already have the place. And be glad of it. Meanwhile, feeling blessed that mah block doesn't have a bar. (We get the film trailers every other day, but hey...no booze.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. yeah the owner of this place is a cool guy - there's plenty worse places to target. honestly, good luck to him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon @ 3:56 PM writes:

    "it is an affirmative defense in a slander/libel suit meaning the DEFENDANT has the burden of proof"

    Wrong (despite the shouting). In matters of legitimate public concern, the onus is on the plaintiff to show the defendant acted "in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties."

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-york-defamation-law

    If John Pierce/No Fun are considered limited purpose public figures, the standard is even stricter - the plaintiffs would have to prove "actual malice." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dirty tricks? All's fair in love and war...and this is war. The LES is under attack by developers, interlopers, outsiders, greedy landlords, uncaring bar owners, foreign developers, trendy restauranteurs and whatever else you can think of. Just like the EV. Good for them. Turn the tables.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Dwellers should counter sue for the devaluation of their apartments, making them uninhabitable due to all the noise.

    ReplyDelete

Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.

If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.