Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Department of Buildings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Department of Buildings

116 A.D.3d 447, 982 N.Y.S.2d 767

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

DecidedApril 3, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 447 (Contest Promotions-NY LLC v. New York City Department of Buildings) 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 Department of Buildings, 116 A.D.3d 447, 982 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 16, 2012, granting petitioner’s order to show cause and petition to the extent of annulling the determination, dated August 30, 2012, which reinstated five notices of violation issued against petitioner’s signs at two locations and imposed fines on petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, respondents’ determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 19, 2013, which consolidated the index numbers, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) that the signs at issue constituted [448]*448“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 ECB’s fact-sensitive analysis of whether the accessory use was clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with the principal use of the property (see Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 91 NY2d 413, 420 [1998]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered November 16, 2012, granting petitioner’s order to show cause and petition to the extent of annulling the determination, dated August 30, 2012, which reinstated five notices of violation issued against petitioner’s signs at two locations and imposed fines on petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, respondents’ determination reinstated, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 19, 2013, which consolidated the index numbers, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) that the signs at issue constituted [448]*448“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 ECB’s fact-sensitive analysis of whether the accessory use was clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with the principal use of the property (see Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 91 NY2d 413, 420 [1998]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 447, 982 N.Y.S.2d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contest-promotions-ny-llc-v-new-york-city-department-of-buildings-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack