Dining Out NYC Rule Amendments

Online comments: 6

• Daniel

  No comments

  Comment added October 14, 2026 1:50pm

• Stacie Johnson, District Manager, MCB4

  RE: Sidewalk Café Enclosures Law

  Dear Commissioner Flynn:

  At its October 7th Full Board meeting by a vote of 40 in favor, 1 against, 0 abstentions and 0 present but not eligible, MCB4 provides the following comments. Manhattan Community Board 4 (MCB4) wants to express its serious concerns regarding the sidewalk café outdoor dining program. The intended clear path for pedestrians on the busiest streets and avenues is being severely encroached upon due to changes in interpretation. The situation would worsen if a new law permits café enclosures without careful guardrails. We ask for your assistance in resolving those problems and promulgating clear rules that support the law’s original objective to safeguard pedestrian clear paths.

  The term “clear path” is defined as a straight, unobstructed path on the sidewalk or sidewalk widening for pedestrian circulation. Although it is not spelled out in the rules and contradicts the definition, recesses have been approved that constrain the clear path by forcing pedestrians to walk in the café perimeter to avoid obstructions.

  The rules spell out that (C) the clear path shall be measured from the outer edge of the perimeter of the sidewalk cafe to the nearest element or object affixed to the sidewalk between such perimeter and the nearest curb line. As a result, the clear path distance does not apply to any obstruction that is located a mere 2 inches away from the café perimeter. This results in bottlenecks for pedestrians.

  The combination of these two interpretations has led to numerous exceptions that obstruct appropriate sidewalk circulation and jeopardize the advancements made by utilizing DOT’s pedestrian mobility plan, which defines clear paths for congested avenues (3% of all sidewalks).

  Now, Intro 0894-2026, which allows cafes to suspend a readily removable vertical winterization covering that may be attached to an overhead covering or to an awning, will make the aforementioned problems worse because the overhanging covering is difficult to chisel out. Furthermore, most awnings are larger than cafes’ footprints, which will further reduce the unobstructed path.

  We recommend that in the revised rules, recesses not be permitted, that measurements be taken as a radius from the cafe boundary, and that enclosures be strictly compliant with the café boundaries and in transparent plastic only to reduce visual “walls” on the sidewalks.

  Another proposed Intro 0724-2026 would go further (it has not passed yet); It would limit the power of DOT to impose a clear path requirement upon a sidewalk cafe larger than 8 feet or 50% even on heavily congested corridors. Thus, sending a clear message now is more important than ever.

  It is all about balance. The roadway cafes are about to generate 30% more revenue in the roadway – which we applaud – there is no need to expand the use of the sidewalk unreasonably. If we want New York city to be the envy of the world, we should allocate walking space accordingly. Thank you for your support.

  Thank you,
  Leslie Boghosian-Murphy
  Chair
  Manhattan Community Board 4

  Comment attachment
  31-EXEC-Letter-to-DOT-re-Sidewalk-Cafe-Enclosures-Law.pdf

  Comment added October 15, 2026 4:50pm

• Emma

  Thank you so much for revisiting outdoor dining. It should be year round, but it should also be meaningfully “outdoors.” As someone who regularly dines with an immunocompromised family member, the opportunity to be outdoors with at least one open wall and real airflow is paramount. The air quality in the “enclosed structures” that restaurants sometimes create is horrible and unsafe for anyone with a compromised immune system (and the Co2 levels these unventilated spaces have aren’t great for any of us). It’s often worse than actual building air. I realize this set up is harder to keep heated when it’s cold and that’s why some restaurants want more airtight structures, but out door dining should be *outdoors.* My father can’t safely eat indoors at a restaurant at any time of year and these last few years with virtually no outdoor dining half the year has been really depressing for all of us. Short of a city-wide initiative to drastically improve indoor air quality, maintaining access to outdoor dining options is an accessibility issue for many. I’m so excited to see expanded outdoor dining, but I’m concerned the current version of these rules will deny vulnerable people access to this important part of city life. Keep outdoor dining year-round, but make it accessible for all New Yorkers. The City Council should consider revisiting its rules about how these spaces are heated. European cities have open air outdoor dining year round that is used even when it’s quite cold because they can access better options for heaters.

  Comment added October 22, 2026 12:03pm

• Brendan

  I second Emma’s commemt

  Comment added October 22, 2026 4:19pm

• Where is this hearing?

  Please post the location of the hearing. Citizens should be permitted to attend, not simply to watch on Zoom.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 22, 2026 4:28pm

• Anna Pakman

  Re: Sections 5-11(a)(1)(i), 5-11(a)(2)(iv)(C), 5-11(b)(2)(iv)(D), and related provisions governing vertical protective coverings

  Dear NYC Department of Transportation,

  I am a New York City resident with a disability that makes me high risk for serious complications from COVID-19. Because of these risks, I always wear an N95 style mask in public indoor spaces. Outdoor dining allows me to participate in New York City’s restaurant culture and maintain social relationships with friends and family without unnecessarily compromising my health. Additionally, I am a full-time wheelchair user and outdoor dining removes many of the architectural barriers presented by indoor dining rooms. I utilize outdoor dining patios at least a couple of times a week, and without them, I would be isolated from my community.

  I strongly support year-round outdoor dining. However, I am concerned that the proposed rules allowing restaurants to enclose outdoor dining areas on all sides would undermine accessibility for disabled and medically vulnerable New Yorkers, create public health risks, and potentially threaten the long-term success of the program.

  I would also like to emphasize that DOT, as a public entity, has obligations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as applicable provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), to ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to public programs and services. These protections extend to people with a wide range of disabilities, including those whose medical conditions make them particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections. DOT should therefore consider whether its proposed regulations create unnecessary barriers to access for disabled New Yorkers. Unfortunately, the proposed provisions permitting fully enclosed outdoor dining structures are doing exactly that. Below, I outline the specific accessibility concerns and propose a straightforward amendment that would help address them before the rules are finalized.

  1. Fully enclosed structures are not meaningfully outdoor dining.
  Sections 5-11(a)(1)(i), 5-11(a)(2)(iv)(C), and 5-11(b)(2)(iv)(D) would permit restaurants to install transparent vertical winterization coverings on all sides of sidewalk and roadway cafes between November 30 and March 31. The proposed rules also permit vertical protective coverings during adverse weather conditions outside the winter season, potentially reducing genuinely open-air seating throughout the year.

  Although these structures would remain legally classified as outdoor dining, enclosing them on all sides creates conditions similar to indoor dining, and cuts off natural ventilation. For disabled and medically vulnerable New Yorkers like myself who cannot safely dine indoors, a fully enclosed outdoor structure is not an accessible alternative.

  The COVID-cautious community is an especially important customer base for winter outdoor dining. While many diners move indoors during colder months, those of us taking precautions against airborne illnesses actively seek out open-air seating year-round. For many of us, it is the only way we can patronize restaurants.

  Allowing restaurants to fully enclose these spaces would make them unusable for precisely the customers who depend on and have most patronized winter outdoor dining venues.

  2. Fully enclosed outdoor structures create avoidable public health risks.
  Fully enclosed outdoor dining structures may lack the mechanical ventilation and filtration standards applicable to indoor restaurant spaces. Without adequate air exchange, respiratory aerosols can accumulate, potentially making these structures even less safe than properly ventilated indoor dining rooms.

  This is particularly concerning because the proposed winterization period, November 30 through March 31, overlaps with the season when influenza, RSV, COVID-19, and other respiratory viruses circulate widely.

  Authorizing poorly ventilated, enclosed dining spaces during this period could contribute to preventable infections, hospitalizations, and additional strain on the healthcare system, disproportionately affecting people most vulnerable to respiratory illness and having a trickle down effect on the economic health of the city through increased absenteeism from workplaces and schools.

  Thus, the City should not authorize what are effectively indoor dining environments without ensuring appropriate ventilation protections. Outdoor dining should remain a genuinely open-air alternative, not a separate category of enclosed spaces with potentially weaker air quality safeguards.

  3. Vertical coverings also create barriers for wheelchair users.
  As a wheelchair user, I am concerned that the proposed rules do not adequately address how deployed vertical coverings affect physical accessibility.

  Even when retractable, these coverings can obstruct entrances, narrow circulation space, and make it difficult to maneuver between tables or access seating. Their supports and attachment mechanisms may also interfere with accessible sidewalk paths.

  The rules should explicitly require that coverings, when deployed, preserve accessible entrances, pedestrian clearances, and sufficient wheelchair maneuvering space within dining areas.

  4. Fully enclosed structures could jeopardize public support for outdoor dining.
  Large, substantially enclosed dining structures were among the features of the initial early pandemic outdoor dining program that generated public criticism. Allowing similar structures again risks reviving concerns about bulky enclosures, their appearance, and their impact on public space. Likewise, addressing accessibility proactively reduces costly ADA litigation risk for both the department and businesses in the program.

  I strongly support making outdoor dining permanent and would hate to see renewed opposition jeopardize a program that benefits restaurants, diners, and people with disabilities.

  Preserving its genuinely open-air character would help protect both accessibility and the program’s long-term viability and political will.

  The solution: Amend the proposed rules to require at least one fully open side during service.
  I urge DOT to amend Sections 5-11(a)(2)(iv)(C) and 5-11(b)(2)(iv)(D), along with the corresponding provisions governing vertical protective coverings, to require minimum ventilation opening standards that can be achieved by requiring at least one entire side of every sidewalk or roadway cafe remain fully open to outside air whenever patrons are present.

  This requirement should apply year-round, including during winterization and adverse weather conditions.

  Proposed regulatory language:

  “When utiliing vertical protective coverings, at least one entire side of a sidewalk cafe or roadway cafe shall remain fully open to outside air whenever the cafe is occupied by patrons. Such opening shall extend across the full available width of that side, from above any required safety barrier or perimeter demarcation to the overhead covering, if present, and shall remain unobstructed by curtains, panels, or other materials that substantially restrict natural airflow.”

  I also request that DOT establish enforceable minimum ventilation-opening standards and explicitly prohibit coverings or associated structures from obstructing accessible pedestrian routes, entrances, exits, or wheelchair maneuvering space.

  Requiring at least one fully open side is a practical minimum standard that would preserve meaningful outdoor dining access for disabled and immonucompromised New Yorkers while still allowing restaurants to provide weather protection.

  I urge DOT to adopt this amendment and ensure that Dining Out NYC remains accessible, safe, and sustainable for all New Yorkers.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Sincerely,
  Anna Pakman
  New York City Resident

  Comment added October 22, 2026 10:33pm