Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals

116 A.D.3d 446, 982 N.Y.S.2d 766

This text of 116 A.D.3d 446 (Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals) 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
Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals, 116 A.D.3d 446, 982 N.Y.S.2d 766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J), entered August 1, 2013, to the extent appealed from, grant[447]*447ing the petition to the extent of annulling the revocation of 10 accessory sign permits which had been issued to petitioner and ordering respondent New York City Department of Buildings to issue such permits, and denying so much of the petition as sought declaratory relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying the petition insofar as it seeks to annul respondents’ determination, reinstating respondents’ determination, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals’ (BSA) determination that the signs at issue constituted “advertising” signs, rather than “accessory” signs, under New York City Zoning Resolution § 12-10, was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Atlantic Outdoor Adv., Inc. v Srinivasan, 110 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2013]). The court should have deferred to BSA’s fact-sensitive analysis of whether the accessory use of the sign was conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related, was clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with the principal use of the property, and was substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use (see Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 91 NY2d 413, 420 [1998]). Similarly, the court properly denied petitioner’s requests for declaratory relief as to the subject permits and similar permits. Concur — Tom, J.P, Acosta, Saxe, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

New York Botanical Garden v. Board of Standards & Appeals
694 N.E.2d 424 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 A.D.3d 446, 982 N.Y.S.2d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contest-promotions-ny-llc-v-new-york-city-board-of-standards-appeals-nyappdiv-2014.