BY SERGEI KLEBNIKOV | Chumley’s has been out of business for more than seven years following a partial building collapse that forced its closure. The bar, which sported an unmarked doorway, is a legendary location, dating back to the 1920s Prohibition era as a speakeasy.
In April 2007, due to a collapse in a building next door that was being renovated, part of the Chumley’s building’s wall also collapsed. Due to “structural deficiencies,” the city’s Department of Buildings revoked the building permit for 86 Bedford St., Chumley’s location.
Over the years, plans to reopen the historic watering hole have faced obstacles. However, repairs and construction paid off in 2012, when Chumley’s owner notified Community Board 2 that the plan was for the place to finally reopen.
C.B. 2, though, recommended denial of a liquor license for Chumley’s, with stipulations for the bar if it were to resume operating.
Bob Gormley, the board’s district manager, explained that the C.B. 2 decision would allow the bar to reopen, but with the specific set of “stipulations as part of its new license.”
Chumley’s filed a liquor license application with the New York State Liquor Authority in early 2013, and it was finally approved in October 2014.
Soon afterward, a community association called BarFreeBedford and other local residents filed a legal challenge against the S.L.A. decision. The petitioners include local residents who live on or nearby the quiet residential street and are concerned with the oversaturation of the neighborhood by alcohol-related businesses. The opponents argue that Chumley’s will bring “unwanted business” to the area.
According to BarFreeBedford, the goals of the neighborhood legal challenge were to demonstrate that all residents living next to the building do not want the bar to reopen there, and that Bedford St. is a “residential block inhabited by families, in between two elementary schools.”
New York City zoning laws state that a “nonconforming” commercial use can only be closed for two consecutive years before the space reverts back to residential use. The petitioners argued that since Chumley’s has been closed for more than seven years, it has “legally lost the right to reopen.”
The petitioners accuse the property’s landlord, Margaret Streiker-Porres, of not renovating Chumley’s in the allotted two-year time. They claim that she instead focused on the adjacent apartment building at 84 Bedford St., which was renovated into luxury apartments, then sold to wealthy buyers.
According to BarFreeBedford, work on the Chumley’s space didn’t start until after the next-door building was already developed and apartments were sold, only after which it became apparent that there were plans to have a bar next door.
Chumley’s manager, Jim Miller, explained that the bar has complied with “all the assurances and stipulations” made by C.B. 2 and the S.L.A. in its efforts to open.
“Clearly, there is a group of neighbors who don’t want to see us reopen,” he said. “But we understand the right to quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood, and we will respect that completely.”
Chumley’s has been a popular and historic destination in the past. Miller said he hopes to be able to “bring that kind of cultural significance back to Greenwich Village.”
In August 2014, in New York State Supreme Court, Justice Barbara Jaffe denied the opponents’ petition to retract Chumley’s new liquor license. The bar was represented by William M. Poppe PLLC, while the petitioners were represented by Mallin & Cha, P.C.
Although they lost the first round in court, the opponents finished filing an appeal last week, Barry Mallin, the lawyer representing them in court, confirmed. He called the entire situation a “classic case of liquor oversaturation in the neighborhood,” and expressed confidence that their legal fight could ultimately prevail. Mallin said the case will now go before the Appellate Division, where they hope the previous decision will be overturned.
BarFreeBedford released an official statement about the first decision.
“To grant a liquor license, it must be shown that opening the establishment is in the best interest of the public,” the statement said. “Our petition clearly shows this is not the case. We believe that the judge erred in her judgment and that we will win this appeal.”
Miller noted that the appeal would continue to block the bar’s reopening efforts. The challenge getting denied in court showed that Chumley’s has a “right to be here, and has no reason not to be allowed to operate,” he argued.
However, Miller explained that both parties were still trying to find a potential compromise.
“We have offered to speak with them and further reduce [our operating] hours,” he said. “In the end, we are simply looking to bring back a beloved historical institution as a respectable and responsible operation for people in New York City to enjoy.”
