{"id":18347,"date":"2026-02-02T05:16:03","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T10:16:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/lavallette-seaside\/?p=18347"},"modified":"2026-02-02T05:18:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T10:18:18","slug":"n-j-court-hears-arguments-from-motels-against-seaside-heights-2023-prom-rental-ordinance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shorebeat.com\/lavallette-seaside\/2026\/02\/n-j-court-hears-arguments-from-motels-against-seaside-heights-2023-prom-rental-ordinance\/","title":{"rendered":"N.J. Court Hears Arguments From Motels Against Seaside Heights 2023 ‘Prom Rental’ Ordinance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"A<\/a>

A sign on a home in Seaside Heights advertising prom rentals, June 2, 2022. (Photo: Daniel Nee)<\/p><\/div>\n

The state’s Superior Court Appellate Division last week heard arguments from the owners of two Seaside Heights motels who are seeking to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of their case.<\/p>\n

While the case was heard by an appellate panel last week, the ordinance has been in place since 2023<\/a>, after several seasons of raucous “prom weekend” activities led to fights, mini-riots and bouts of general chaos that were well-chronicled to millions of news viewers in the tri-state area and beyond. Residents called for action, as did law enforcement, but an initial push to create restrictions led to motel owners \u2013 in some cases, those who admitted renting to post-prom guests \u2013 threatening to sue over age restrictions that had been considered in years past. Following the public outcry \u2013 as well as what had become an annual embarrassment when scenes of out-of-control teens hit the airwaves \u2013 the borough took action by passing an ordinance that was less restrictive than what had been considered as far back as 2018<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petition before the appellate division, brought by the owners of the Hershey Motel and Sunrise Motel, seeks to reverse a decision by Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson, sitting in Ocean County, who dismissed the original complaint March 8, 2024. Hodgson, in an oral ruling delivered from the bench, said he dismissed the action since the plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.”<\/p>\n

In their appeal, the plaintiffs are alleging that Hodgson erred in his finding \u2013 specifically by failing to find that, due to an age restriction on motel rentals, the plaintiffs would be forced to discriminate against young guests, thereby creating a scenario where “irreparable harm” could occur. In a transcript from the trial court, Hodgson was asked by the plaintiffs’ attorney whether or not he took “the violation of a fundamental right into consideration as well as the income issue.” Hodgson responded by saying: “The short answer is ‘no.'”<\/p>\n

What the Ordinance Does<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ordinance is simple in its implementation. It prohibits persons under the age of 21 to rent a room between April 15 and June 30 each year.\u00a0 It also prohibits anyone from renting a room for the purposes of allowing someone under 21 years of age to occupy the room unless they are an immediate family member or guardian, or another person of age staying in the same room. This portion of the ordinance was designed to close a loophole through which a parent or friend may rent a room in their name that can be used by a person under 21-years-old. A similar paragraph maintains the same restrictions for any person under 18-years-old for the remainder of the year.<\/p>\n

Officials at the time said passing the ordinance to limit rentals to a certain age group for a certain time period to crack down on highly-publicized dysfunction was a step they could take in lieu of simply banning all short-term rentals early in the season. Most property owners \u2013 who owned individual homes \u2013 applauded the ordinance’s passage. But motel owners had always remained steadfastly against the ordinance despite the concerns over safety, underage drinking and fights breaking out in public. Previous years had seen action taken against liquor license holders after a “prom weekend” party led to a rash of drug overdose calls<\/a> to the local EMS squad.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

A sign advertising prom and summer rentals in Seaside Heights. (Photo: Daniel Nee)<\/p><\/div>\n

At the hearing where the ordinance was first considered, a Sampson Avenue property owner said their security cameras showed 15 juveniles at the property one night, followed by 24 the next. The tenants were removed. Another resident said up to 70 juveniles packed into one rental property, and yet another said she witnessed renters charging their own guests to buy wristbands to gain access to an illegal party.<\/p>\n

The motel owners stated they were worried they would lose business<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that going to 21 is going to cripple everything early in the season,\u201d said Herb McGrath, owner of the Hershey Motel and plaintiff in the current lawsuit. \u201cI\u2019m not here just to protect my bottom line but businesses all over.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThese kids who are 18 \u2013 they\u2019re graduating high school, going to college, going into the military, and they want to protect themselves,\u201d McGrath explained, offering anecdotes about what happens when teens do get into trouble: \u201cThe first thing they say is, \u2018don\u2019t tell my mom,\u2019 and the second thing is, \u2018please don\u2019t let me lose my scholarship.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The motel owners gathered at the March 2018 council meeting were quick to threaten litigation, and had attorneys on hand.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor a governing body to embrace age discrimination is a very, very risky strategy because, you know, you\u2019re basically opening yourself up to penalties,\u201d John Wiley, an attorney for Atlantic Hospitality LLC said. \u201cThe sums judges adjudicate in these cases are staggering, even for a lawyer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Residents lined up to give the opposing view.<\/p>\n

\u201cI, personally, am tired of watching ambulance picking kids up who have had too much alcohol and are overdosing,\u201d said Theresa Bissel, a DuPont Avenue resident. \u201cThe motels complain about going to 21, but they created this. They watch the kids drink and they watch them get taken away in gurneys.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ordinance was passed unanimously and amended in 2023, leading to 2024 litigation that is now being heard by the appellate division.<\/p>\n

The Hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appellate division serves as an intermediate court in New Jersey, reviewing cases to determine if legal errors were made in their adjudication. Appellate judges are paneled. The Seaside Heights case was the subject of oral arguments Jan. 27, 2026, as chronicled by New Jersey Monitor<\/a>, which covers the state court system.<\/p>\n

Christopher Shea, an attorney representing the motels, argued to the appellate judges that excluding a specific class of people like young adults amounts to discrimination. Shea said the broad statute targets \u201cobnoxious behavior\u201d rather than criminal behavior.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>

The Seaside Heights boardwalk, Summer 2025. (Photo: Shorebeat)<\/p><\/div>\n

If the ordinance really intended to curtail crime, he said, it makes \u201czero sense\u201d that it ends before the Fourth of July, a holiday that attracts rowdy crowds to the beaches. Shea noted that Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is just about 40 miles west of Seaside Heights.<\/p>\n

\u201cAdults who are between the ages of 18 and 21, who have the same ability to go to war and contract their bodies away, should have the same ability to contract to rent a hotel room in Seaside Heights,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The ordinance, which allows for 18 to 20-year-olds to stay in short-term rentals with family members, could notionally lead to other legal problems, Shea said. A 21-year-old who is engaged to their 20-year-old partner would not be able to rent a room together in Seaside Heights, he said.<\/p>\n

That had one judge questioning \u2014 what if two consenting adults want to \u201cget a room?\u201d<\/p>\n

Kevin Riordan, an attorney representing Seaside Heights in the case, responded that young people can rent a house or can go elsewhere, like Belmar, Seaside Park, or Point Pleasant. He added that the ordinance is tailored directly to solving a specific problem: young people coming to Seaside Heights to celebrate the end of high school.<\/p>\n

\u201cI still remember how careless an individual I was after my prom. I\u2019m lucky to still be alive, and there are a number of others who I think can make the same claim,\u201d he said. \u201cAll we\u2019re doing is trying to address a problem with prom behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is no timeline for the panel to hand down an opinion in the case.<\/p>\n

~<\/p>\n

Editor’s Note:<\/strong> This article included reporting from New Jersey Monitor<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read the Appeal:<\/strong><\/p>\n