A New Jersey Superior Court has recently overturned a decision upholding Beach Haven’s ban on establishments holding teen nights. The case involving the Marlin Restaurant and Bar and the borough was remanded back to the trial court.
The suit was filed during the summer of 2024 after the borough council adopted an ordinance that abolished teen nights. Owner Michael Battista’s establishment was the only one that planned to offer teen nights that summer, and no others have offered it since.
The trial court dismissed Battista’s initial complaint on April 28, 2025, and denied a reconsideration motion three months later. He then filed with the appellate division.
“The borough’s actions are a violation of several articles in the Constitution of the United States,” said Battista, who was a commissioner and mayor under the borough’s prior form of government and served on the council in 2023 after being appointed to fill an unexpired term. “Those are the right to assemble, right to free speech and the rights of non-discrimination. It is a safe, supervised event where underage kids can enjoy socializing with their friends, get to meet new friends and enjoy a summer of their dreams.”
The ordinance was the outgrowth of a discussion that spring in which council members Colleen Lambert and Michael McCaffrey expressed their desire to put an end to teen night, citing numerous reports of unruly behavior among the young people.
Arnold Lakind, Battista’s attorney at the time, said the ordinance violated terms of a settlement agreement Battista had made with the borough in 1997. At that time, Battista owned both the Marlin and the Ketch (now Bird & Betty’s). The attorney said the settlement stipulated that if there were any more problems arising, Beach Haven was required to send Battista a formal written notice, and if there were any changes in the terms of the liquor license, he was to be contacted in advance.
Battista had called the borough’s actions a “witch hunt” and “selective enforcement.”
“If there was such a problem, why didn’t this come up in the off-season when we had time to discuss it and hopefully work things out?” he said. “They sprang this up on me right before the summer season.”
In its decision, the appellate court opinion noted the stated purpose of the ordinance is to “codify regulations meant to combat underage drinking and otherwise prohibit ‘teen nights.’”
“The amended ordinance did not change that articulated purpose,” the appellate division said. “The borough council might establish events designed to draw groups of unsupervised minors to liquor-licensed establishments encourage underage drinking or acclimatize teenagers to drinking culture, even when alcohol sales are suspended during the event itself. However, the court cannot determine whether the amended ordinance satisfies rational basis review on the pleading alone because plaintiffs allege the abolition of teen nights uniquely affects the Marlin, as the only licensee conducting those events prior to the ordinance. Because the trial court here went beyond a limited inquiry into the pleadings and decided the merits of plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim, the dismissal was premature.”
The appellate court ruled that the lower court also erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim based on the amended ordinance’s vagueness.
“A law is impermissibly vague if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited or is so standardless that it permits discriminatory enforcement,” it said.
Battista said he may also pursue compensation from the borough, saying the teen night ban resulted in a “substantial loss of revenue.”
Borough Manager Sherry Mason said the matter could take two years to resolve in court. “We’re getting ready to enter the discovery phase.”
While the case has been on the court docket, Battista said he has offered to settle.
“Nobody comes away from a settlement happy,” he said. “Neither side gets everything they wanted. But it would probably be best for the borough if we settled.”
