Rochester Poster Advertising Co., Inc. v. Town of Brighton

Decision Date06 November 1975
Citation374 N.Y.S.2d 510,49 A.D.2d 273
PartiesROCHESTER POSTER ADVERTISING CO., INC., Respondent, v. TOWN OF BRIGHTON, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Antell, Harris, Githler & Calleri, Rochester, for appellant (Charles H. Githler, II, Rochester, of counsel).

Harris, Beach & Wilcox, Rochester, for respondent (Henry W. Williams, Jr., Rochester, of counsel).

Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust, Syracuse, amicus curiae for richards 'Of Course', Inc. (Carl W. Peterson, Jr., Syracuse, of counsel).

Mazza, Williamson & Clune, Ithaca, amicus curiae for RHP, Inc. (Robert I. Williamson, Ithaca, of counsel).

De Graff, Foy, Conway & Hold-Harris, Albany, amicus curiae for Murphy Outdoor Advertising Corp. (Michael J. Cunningham, Albany, of counsel).

Donald A. Campbell, Amsterdam, amicus curiae for Adirondack Outdoor, Inc.

Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, Buffalo, amicus curiae for Whitmier & Ferris Co., Inc. (Adelbert Fleischmann & Brian J. Troy, Buffalo, of counsel).

Lawrence R. Reich, White Plains, amicus curiae for Griese Advertising-Suburban New York, Inc.

Eugene L. De Nicola, Sayville, amicus curiae for Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc.

Before MARSH, P.J., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, GOLDMAN and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.

OPINION

DEL VECCHIO, Justice:

Plaintiff has successfully challenged, as violative of its constitutional rights against the taking of property without due process and without just compensation, a sign and zoning ordinance of the Town of Brighton, the application of which gave plaintiff a period of 34 months during which it was permitted to maintain a non-accessory outdoor advertising billboard after adoption of the ordinance which prohibited such billboard. Although several amici briefs have been submitted addressing themselves to the question of the constitutionality of local ordinances which totally exclude billboards from a regulated area, we do not believe that this case requires or that the record presents a sufficient showing for us to reach that broad issue (See People v. Goodman, 31 N.Y.2d 262, 338 N.Y.S.2d 97, 290 N.E.2d 139; Matter of Cromwell v. Ferrier, 19 N.Y.2d 263, 279 N.Y.S.2d 22, 225 N.E.2d 749). The proof adequately demonstrates that, with respect to plaintiff's billboard, the application of the ordinances is a legitimate exercise of the police power. The legislative enactments themselves carry with them 'an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality' (Matter of Malpica-Orsini, 36 N.Y.2d 568, 570, 370 N.Y.S.2d 511, 514, 331 N.E.2d 486, 488). The uncontroverted evidence established that the single billboard which is the subject of this action is composed of four, interconnected panels each 12 by 25 and is located about 25 feet from the pavement of Route 15, a heavily traveled four-lane highway which is the major route for traffic going south from Rochester. The billboard location is about a half mile south of Rochester in a well developed residential and commercial area north of Henrietta and is between two points at which roads come into Route 15. The billboard, which is constructed so that two of its panels are visible to northbound traffic and two are visible to southbound traffic, is 600 feet from a traffic control signal at the junction to the north and 150 feet from a traffic control signal at the junction to the south. In addition to the foregoing proof there was testimony by a police officer with fourteen years experience on the Town of Brighton police force that the signs which make up the billboard create a traffic safety hazard by virtue of its location. In these circumstances the application of the ordinances, which now prohibit the continuance of the billboard in question, represents a permissible exercise of the police power in the protection of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1977
    ...263, 279 N.Y.S.2d 22, 225 N.E.2d 749; People v. Goodman, 31 N.Y.2d 262, 338 N.Y.S.2d 97, 290 N.E.2d 139; Rochester Poster Adv. Co. v. Town of Brighton, 49 A.D.2d 273, 374 N.Y.S.2d 510; 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice (2d ed.), §§ 7.07, 11.54; 67 N.Y. Jur., Zoning and Planning L......
  • Wnek Vending and Amusements, Inc. v. City of Buffalo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1978
    ...486 (1975); Nettleton v. Diamond, 27 N.Y.2d 182, 315 N.Y.S.2d 625, 264 N.E.2d 118 (1970); Rochester Poster Advertising Co., Inc. v. Town of Brighton, 149 A.D.2d 273, 374 N.Y.S.2d 510 (4th Dept. 1975). At the outset, it is of interest to note that Plaintiff does not move by way of Article 78......
  • Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 20, 1977
    ...749; New York State Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Court, 10 N.Y.2d 151, 218 N.Y.S.2d 640, 176 N.E.2d 566; Rochester Poster Adv. Co. v. Town of Brighton, 49 A.D.2d 273, 374 N.Y.S.2d 510). However, legislation whose legitimacy is measured against an aesthetic purpose must meet the test of rea......
  • Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1976
    ...conclusion is supported by language in the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Rochester Poster Adv. Co. v. Town of Brighton, 49 A.D.2d 273, 276, 374 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513: '. . . the enactment by the Legislature of section 9--0305 of the Environmental Conservation Law--lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT