Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE M - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 1. Commitments At March 31, 2013, Nathan’s had open purchase commitments for hot dogs at a total cost of $5,000,000 which have been purchased between April and July 2013. The hot dogs purchased represented approximately 17.3% of Nathan’s actual usage during the fiscal 2014 period. At December 29, 2013, Nathan’s fulfilled its obligation pursuant to this purchase commitment and has not entered into any new purchase commitments during the fiscal 2014 period. However, Nathan’s may enter into additional purchase commitments in the future as favorable market conditions become available. At March 31, 2013, Nathan’s had open construction contracts of approximately $2,000,000 in connection with the rebuilding of the Coney Island restaurant. At December 29, 2013, the construction at Coney Island had been completed and all of these contracts had been paid or have been accrued to be paid. We estimate that we will invest approximately $1,100,000 in connection with the redevelopment of our Yonkers restaurant in fiscal 2014 of which approximately $1,000,000 has been incurred through December 29, 2013. 2. Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are from time to time involved in ordinary and routine litigation. Management presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling could include money damages and, in such event, could result in a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs or is implemented. The Company was also involved in the following legal proceeding: The Company is party to a License Agreement with SMG, Inc. (“SMG”) dated as of February 28, 1994, as amended (the “License Agreement”) pursuant to which: (i) SMG acts as the Company’s exclusive licensee for the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of packaged Nathan’s Famous frankfurter product at supermarkets, club stores and other retail outlets in the United States; and (ii) the Company has the right, but not the obligation, to require SMG to produce frankfurters for the Nathan’s Famous restaurant system and Branded Product Program. On July 31, 2007, the Company provided notice to SMG that the Company has elected to terminate the License Agreement, effective July 31, 2008 (the “Termination Date”), due to SMG’s breach of certain provisions of the License Agreement. SMG has disputed that a breach has occurred and has commenced, together with certain of its affiliates, an action in state court in Illinois seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that SMG did not breach the License Agreement. The Company filed its own action on August 2, 2007, in New York State court seeking a declaratory judgment that SMG has breached the License Agreement and that the Company has properly terminated the License Agreement. On January 23, 2008, the New York court granted SMG’s motion to dismiss the Company’s case in New York on the basis that the dispute was already the subject of a pending lawsuit in Illinois. The Company answered SMG’s complaint in Illinois and asserted its own counterclaims which seek, among other things, a declaratory judgment that SMG did breach the License Agreement and that the Company has properly terminated the License Agreement. On July 31, 2008, SMG and Nathan’s entered into a Stipulation pursuant to which Nathan’s agreed that it would not effectuate the termination of the License Agreement on the grounds alleged in the present litigation until such litigation has been successfully adjudicated, and SMG agreed that in such event, Nathan’s shall have the option to require SMG to continue to perform under the License Agreement for an additional period of up to six months to ensure an orderly transition of the business to a new licensee/supplier. On June 30, 2009, SMG and Nathan’s each filed motions for summary judgment. Both motions for summary judgment were ultimately denied on February 25, 2010. On January 28, 2010, SMG filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and Amended Answer, which sought to assert new claims and affirmative defenses based on Nathan’s alleged breach of the parties’ License Agreement in connection with the manner in which Nathan’s profits from the sale of its proprietary seasonings to SMG. On February 25, 2010, the court granted SMG’s motion for leave, and its Second Amended Complaint and Amended Answer were filed with the court. On March 29, 2010, Nathan’s filed an answer to SMG’s Second Amended Complaint, which denied substantially all of the allegations in the complaint. On September 17, 2010, SMG filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings to SMG. On October 5, 2010, Nathan’s filed an opposition to SMG’s motion for summary judgment, and itself cross-moved for summary judgment. A trial on the claims relating to Nathan’s termination of the License Agreement took place between October 6 and October 13, 2010. Oral argument on the claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings took place prior to the start of the trial. On October 13, 2010, an Order was entered with the Court denying Nathan’s cross-motion and granting SMG’s motion for summary judgment with respect to SMG’s claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings to SMG. On December 17, 2010, the Court ruled that Nathan’s was not entitled to terminate the License Agreement. On January 19, 2011, the parties submitted an agreed upon order which, among other things, assessed damages against Nathan’s of approximately $4.9 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The final judgment was entered on February 4, 2011. On March 4, 2011, Nathan's filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the final judgment. In order to secure the final judgment pending an appeal, on March 31, 2011, Nathan's entered into a Security Agreement with SMG and Blocked Deposit Account Agreement with SMG and Citibank, N.A., as described in Note E. On April 7, 2011, the Court entered a stipulation and order which granted a stay of enforcement of the Judgment. Nathan’s filed an appellate brief with the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, on August 8, 2011. In response, SMG filed an opposition appellate brief on October 21, 2011. Nathan’s filed a reply brief on November 14, 2011. On December 11, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments. On January 25, 2013, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. On February 15, 2013, Nathan’s filed a Petition for Re-hearing which was denied on February 27, 2013. On April 3, 2013, Nathan’s filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court. Subsequently, we were advised that the Illinois Supreme Court denied the Petition for Leave of Appeal. On July 24, 2013, $6,009,000, inclusive of all post-judgment interest, was withdrawn by SMG from the blocked account, in full satisfaction of this matter. 3. Guaranty On December 1, 2009, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company executed a Guaranty of Lease (the “Guaranty”) in connection with its re-franchising of a restaurant located in West Nyack, New York. The Guaranty could be called upon in the event of a default by the tenant/franchisee. The Guaranty extends through the fifth Lease Year, as defined in the lease, and shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest amount of the annual minimum rent, percentage rent and any additional rent payable pursuant to the lease and reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. We have recorded a liability of approximately $228,200 in connection with the Guaranty, which does not include potential real estate tax increases and attorney’s fees and other costs as these amounts are not reasonably determinable at this time. In connection with Nathan’s franchise agreement, Nathan’s has received a personal guaranty from the franchisee for all obligations under the Guaranty. To date, Nathan’s has not been required to make any payments pursuant to the Guaranty.

Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 29, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE M - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

1. Commitments

At March 31, 2013, Nathan’s had open purchase commitments for hot dogs at a total cost of $5,000,000 which have been purchased between April and July 2013. The hot dogs purchased represented approximately 17.3% of Nathan’s actual usage during the fiscal 2014 period. At December 29, 2013, Nathan’s fulfilled its obligation pursuant to this purchase commitment and has not entered into any new purchase commitments during the fiscal 2014 period. However, Nathan’s may enter into additional purchase commitments in the future as favorable market conditions become available.

At March 31, 2013, Nathan’s had open construction contracts of approximately $2,000,000 in connection with the rebuilding of the Coney Island restaurant. At December 29, 2013, the construction at Coney Island had been completed and all of these contracts had been paid or have been accrued to be paid. We estimate that we will invest approximately $1,100,000 in connection with the redevelopment of our Yonkers restaurant in fiscal 2014 of which approximately $1,000,000 has been incurred through December 29, 2013.

2. Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are from time to time involved in ordinary and routine litigation. Management presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings could occur. An unfavorable ruling could include money damages and, in such event, could result in a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations for the period in which the ruling occurs or is implemented.

The Company was also involved in the following legal proceeding:

The Company is party to a License Agreement with SMG, Inc. (“SMG”) dated as of February 28, 1994, as amended (the “License Agreement”) pursuant to which: (i) SMG acts as the Company’s exclusive licensee for the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of packaged Nathan’s Famous frankfurter product at supermarkets, club stores and other retail outlets in the United States; and (ii) the Company has the right, but not the obligation, to require SMG to produce frankfurters for the Nathan’s Famous restaurant system and Branded Product Program.

On July 31, 2007, the Company provided notice to SMG that the Company has elected to terminate the License Agreement, effective July 31, 2008 (the “Termination Date”), due to SMG’s breach of certain provisions of the License Agreement. SMG has disputed that a breach has occurred and has commenced, together with certain of its affiliates, an action in state court in Illinois seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that SMG did not breach the License Agreement. The Company filed its own action on August 2, 2007, in New York State court seeking a declaratory judgment that SMG has breached the License Agreement and that the Company has properly terminated the License Agreement. On January 23, 2008, the New York court granted SMG’s motion to dismiss the Company’s case in New York on the basis that the dispute was already the subject of a pending lawsuit in Illinois. The Company answered SMG’s complaint in Illinois and asserted its own counterclaims which seek, among other things, a declaratory judgment that SMG did breach the License Agreement and that the Company has properly terminated the License Agreement. On July 31, 2008, SMG and Nathan’s entered into a Stipulation pursuant to which Nathan’s agreed that it would not effectuate the termination of the License Agreement on the grounds alleged in the present litigation until such litigation has been successfully adjudicated, and SMG agreed that in such event, Nathan’s shall have the option to require SMG to continue to perform under the License Agreement for an additional period of up to six months to ensure an orderly transition of the business to a new licensee/supplier. On June 30, 2009, SMG and Nathan’s each filed motions for summary judgment. Both motions for summary judgment were ultimately denied on February 25, 2010. On January 28, 2010, SMG filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and Amended Answer, which sought to assert new claims and affirmative defenses based on Nathan’s alleged breach of the parties’ License Agreement in connection with the manner in which Nathan’s profits from the sale of its proprietary seasonings to SMG. On February 25, 2010, the court granted SMG’s motion for leave, and its Second Amended Complaint and Amended Answer were filed with the court. On March 29, 2010, Nathan’s filed an answer to SMG’s Second Amended Complaint, which denied substantially all of the allegations in the complaint. On September 17, 2010, SMG filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings to SMG. On October 5, 2010, Nathan’s filed an opposition to SMG’s motion for summary judgment, and itself cross-moved for summary judgment. A trial on the claims relating to Nathan’s termination of the License Agreement took place between October 6 and October 13, 2010. Oral argument on the claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings took place prior to the start of the trial. On October 13, 2010, an Order was entered with the Court denying Nathan’s cross-motion and granting SMG’s motion for summary judgment with respect to SMG’s claims relating to the sale of Nathan’s proprietary seasonings to SMG. On December 17, 2010, the Court ruled that Nathan’s was not entitled to terminate the License Agreement. On January 19, 2011, the parties submitted an agreed upon order which, among other things, assessed damages against Nathan’s of approximately $4.9 million inclusive of pre-judgment interest, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. The final judgment was entered on February 4, 2011. On March 4, 2011, Nathan's filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the final judgment. In order to secure the final judgment pending an appeal, on March 31, 2011, Nathan's entered into a Security Agreement with SMG and Blocked Deposit Account Agreement with SMG and Citibank, N.A., as described in Note E. On April 7, 2011, the Court entered a stipulation and order which granted a stay of enforcement of the Judgment.

Nathan’s filed an appellate brief with the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, on August 8, 2011. In response, SMG filed an opposition appellate brief on October 21, 2011. Nathan’s filed a reply brief on November 14, 2011. On December 11, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments. On January 25, 2013, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. On February 15, 2013, Nathan’s filed a Petition for Re-hearing which was denied on February 27, 2013. On April 3, 2013, Nathan’s filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court. Subsequently, we were advised that the Illinois Supreme Court denied the Petition for Leave of Appeal. On July 24, 2013, $6,009,000, inclusive of all post-judgment interest, was withdrawn by SMG from the blocked account, in full satisfaction of this matter.

3. Guaranty

On December 1, 2009, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company executed a Guaranty of Lease (the “Guaranty”) in connection with its re-franchising of a restaurant located in West Nyack, New York. The Guaranty could be called upon in the event of a default by the tenant/franchisee. The Guaranty extends through the fifth Lease Year, as defined in the lease, and shall not exceed an amount equal to the highest amount of the annual minimum rent, percentage rent and any additional rent payable pursuant to the lease and reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. We have recorded a liability of approximately $228,200 in connection with the Guaranty, which does not include potential real estate tax increases and attorney’s fees and other costs as these amounts are not reasonably determinable at this time. In connection with Nathan’s franchise agreement, Nathan’s has received a personal guaranty from the franchisee for all obligations under the Guaranty. To date, Nathan’s has not been required to make any payments pursuant to the Guaranty.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details