Commissioner of Community Development v. Foster & Kleiser, Division of Metromedia, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioner of Community Development v. Foster & Kleiser, Division of Metromedia, Inc.

123 A.D.2d 495, 507 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60250

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 26, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 495 (Commissioner of Community Development v. Foster & Kleiser, Division of Metromedia, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commissioner of Community Development v. Foster & Kleiser, Division of Metromedia, Inc., 123 A.D.2d 495, 507 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed [496]*496without costs. Memorandum: Respondent’s "just compensation” argument was properly rejected for the reasons stated at Special Term. The Federal Highway Beautification Act (23 USC § 131) does not preclude a holding that "petitioners are entitled to no more than a reasonable amortization period” (Matter of Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Town of Southampton, 60 NY2d 70, 76; rearg denied 61 NY2d 670). Respondent lacks standing to raise a 1st Amendment overbreadth challenge to the ordinance as it has made no showing of any direct interest in noncommercial speech or any commercial interest in others who have such an interest (Syracuse Sav. Bank v Town of DeWitt, 56 NY2d 671, appeal dismissed 459 US 803). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Celli, J.—removal of billboards.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed [496]*496without costs. Memorandum: Respondent’s "just compensation” argument was properly rejected for the reasons stated at Special Term. The Federal Highway Beautification Act (23 USC § 131) does not preclude a holding that "petitioners are entitled to no more than a reasonable amortization period” (Matter of Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Town of Southampton, 60 NY2d 70, 76; rearg denied 61 NY2d 670). Respondent lacks standing to raise a 1st Amendment overbreadth challenge to the ordinance as it has made no showing of any direct interest in noncommercial speech or any commercial interest in others who have such an interest (Syracuse Sav. Bank v Town of DeWitt, 56 NY2d 671, appeal dismissed 459 US 803). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Celli, J.—removal of billboards.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 495, 507 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioner-of-community-development-v-foster-kleiser-division-of-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack