Willow Media, LLC v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
| Citation | 910 N.Y.S.2d 903,78 A.D.3d 596 |
| Parties | WILLOW MEDIA, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 596
WILLOW MEDIA, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov. 30, 2010.
Cohen, Hochman & Allen, New York (Bradley J. Green of counsel), for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondents.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2010 and July 27, 2010, which denied the motions by plaintiffs Willow Media, LLC, Signal Outdoor Advertising, LLC, Mogul Media, Inc., Elliot Media Inc., Vector Media, LLC, Atlantic Outdoor, Inc., and Scenic Outdoor, Inc., and plaintiffs Fuel Outdoor, LLC and Marathon Outdoor, LLC, respectively, for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits" of their challenge to the subject advertising regulations ( Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272 [1988] ), since they failed to show either that the regulations violated their First Amendment rights or that there was no rational basis for the regulations ( see Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Commn. of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 [1980]; see also Matter of von Wiegen, 63 N.Y.2d 163, 170, 481 N.Y.S.2d 40, 470 N.E.2d 838 [1984] [applying Central Hudson analysis] ). Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate either the prospect of imminent and irreparable harm or the balance of equities tipping in their favor ( see Doe v. Axelrod, 73 N.Y.2d at 750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 44, 532 N.E.2d 1272). The record contains no evidence suggesting imminent harm. Indeed, the regulations provide that plaintiffs' signs may not be removed before certain administrative procedures are followed, which in turn are subject to an appeals process ( see e.g. Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 26-261[a][5][c] [repealed and added as § 28-502.4.3(iii) of Miscellaneous Provisions, Chapter 5 (in Title 28 volume with Plumbing Code), by Local Law 33 of 2007, eff. July 1, 2008] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find
them without merit.GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, NARDELLI, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Opticians
...a “rational basis” standard of review is applicable ( id. at 453, 920 N.Y.S.2d 337;see e.g. Willow Media, LLC v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 596, 910 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2010] ). With respect to commercial speech, the Court of Appeals has adopted the four-part test employed in Central Hudson Gas ......
-
Otr Media Group Inc. v. the City of N.Y.
...Committee on Professional Stds. v. Von Wiegen, 472 U.S. 1007, 105 S.Ct. 2701, 86 L.Ed.2d 717 [1985]; Willow Media, LLC v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 596, 596, 910 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2010] ). Applying the Central Hudson test, we hold that the subject regulations are constitutional because they d......
-
In re G Builders Iv Llc
...of those witnesses to establish its case in a proceeding which, notably, it commenced ( see Willow Media, LLC v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 596, 910 N.Y.S.2d 903 [2010]; GFI Sec., LLC v. Tradition Asiel Sec., Inc., 61 A.D.3d 586, 878 N.Y.S.2d 689 [2009] ). Most importantly, Supreme Court a......
-
Borek v. Seidman
...Sublette intended to dispose of or destroy his records, or that any such harm was imminent (see Willow Media, LLC v City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 596, 596 [1st Dept 2010]). Moreover, the balance of equities favors Sublette, as the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from claiming that he has t......