Froslid v. Hults

20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4192
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 19, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 498 (Froslid v. Hults) 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
Froslid v. Hults, 20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

Beldock, P. J.

Petitioner, who is a resident of Nassau County, a taxpayer of this State, and the owner of two automobiles and a trailer, wrote to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles on November 22,1963, demanding that the latter cancel his order placing the words “ World’s Fair” on the 1964 automobile license plates.

On December 5, 1963 the Commissioner denied the request.

On December 17,1963 this article 78 proceeding was instituted to: (1) direct the Commissioner to issue an order authorizing all motor vehicle owners to delete from the 1964 license plates the legend “ World’s Fair and (2) to direct him to cease and desist from authorizing or ordering license plates for 1965 with [500]*500that legend; or, in the alternative (3) to direct him to collect from the corporation, New York World’s Fair 1964-1965, Inc., a sum of money for the advertising value of the legend on the license plates during such period.

The basis of the petition was that: (a) The use of petitioner’s private property for advertising purposes for a private corporation, without compensation, constitutes a taking of petitioner’s property without due process of law;

(b) It is a violation of the provisions of the .State Constitution prohibiting a gift or loan of public property or the use thereof for any private corporation; and

(c) The legend “ World’s Fair ” is false because only 35 of the 107 Nations listed in the United Nations, and only 22 of the 50 States in the United States, will participate therein, and, because the Fair has not been approved by the Bureau of International Exhibits.

By the order appealed from the Special Term granted the petition to the extent of directing the Commissioner to issue to petitioner and to all other persons, upon application therefor and upon payment of the proper fee, registration plates for 1964 which do not bear the objectionable legend or from which. it shall have been deleted. The petition was denied in all other respects. In an accompanying opinion (41 Misc 2d 570) the court held: (1) that subdivision 2 of section 402 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law gives the Commissioner power to prescribe the “material, form, design and dimensions” of the registration plates, but that such power may be exercised only consistent with the purpose of the plates, namely: “ To serve as a means of identification of the vehicle and its owner, in the furtherance of traffic safety, its enforcement and the proper regulation of the use of the highways; ” (p. 573) and (2) that matter advertising the World’s Fair or any other private corporation in no way serves to further the purpose or intent of the law requiring display of registration plates.

The Commissioner appeals (as limited by his brief) insofar as the order grants the petition with respect to the 1964 license plates. The petitioner appeals insofar as the order denies him the relief requested with respect to the 1965 license plates.

In our opinion, the order insofar as it grants the petition should be reversed; and insofar as the order denies the petition it should be affirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Petitioner has sufficient status to maintain the present proceeding because he is being required to attach to his private automobiles license plates a legend which advertises a private corporation. Therefore, his private rights are allegedly being [501]*501invaded (Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome County, 18 N. Y. 155, 163).

The sole statutory authority for the Commissioner to prescribe what shall be placed on license plates is contained in section 402 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which, insofar as pertinent, provides:

1. No person shall operate, drive or park a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state unless such vehicle shall have a distinctive number assigned to it by the commissioner * * * conspicuously displayed * * *.

“ 2. 'Such number plates shall be of such material, form, design and dimensions and contain or set forth such distinguishing number or other identification marks as the commissioner shall prescribe ”.

The question is whether, under the power of the Commissioner to prescribe the material, form, design and dimensions” of license plates, the Commissioner is empowered to place “ World’s Fair ” thereon for the years 1964 and 1965.

In our opinion, the Commissioner has such power because the New York World’s Fair, although operated by a private corporation, is a matter of public concern, for the public good, and for the general welfare of the State.

The New York World’s Fair 1964-1965 corporation is a nonprofit membership corporation, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any of its members or of any other person. Its purpose is to hold a World’s Fair for educational purposes. All revenues of the Fair remaining after the discharge of its obligations will go to New York City for the restoration and improvement of Flushing Meadow Park, and the remaining balance of such revenue will thereafter be used by the City of New York for educational purposes (L. 1960, ch. 428).

In his Annual Message to the Legislature on January 6,1960, the Governor stated that New York had acquired a tremendously valuable asset when the President of the United States recommended New York City as the site for the 1964 World’s Fair and his recommendation was approved by the international organization involved, and that it has been estimated that visitors to the Fair will spend five to six billion dollars within the borders of the State.

By statute (L. 1960, ch. 429), a New York State Commission on the World’s Fair was created to prepare for the State’s active participation in the 1964—1965 World’s Fair, including construction and maintenance of exhibits or projects at the Fair. That statute was amended in 1962 to provide that the commission shall perform such acts ‘ ‘ as may in its judgment be neces[502]*502■sary to insure ’ ’ that “ the maximum number of visitors will be attracted to the state’s exhibits and the entire state during the fair period” (L. 1962, ch. 818).

In enacting legislation (L. 1961, ch. 897) with respect to the completion of a New York State Theatre Building at the Lincoln Center in time for the opening of the World’s Fair, the Legislature stated that: ‘ ‘ The state, on many occasions, has demonstrated its approval of and enthusiasm for the forthcoming 1964-1965 New York World’s Fair.”

Another statute (L. 1963, ch. 950) established a New York State World’s Fair Exhibit fund for the construction and maintenance of a New York .State Exhibit at the Fair.

The State has also appropriated large sums of money for the construction of roads in connection with the Fair.

In his Annual Message to the Legislature on January 9, 1963, the Governor stated:

“ The New York World’s Fair is expected to bring 70 million visitors to New York State in 1964 and 1965. The State has acted to help assure the Fair’s success and to attract these visitors to many other parts of the State as well. * * #

“ In addition, the Commerce Department is actively promoting travel to other areas of the State by Fair visitors. These efforts include overseas advertising and we expect them to produce a major increase of tourism in the State.”

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

Related

The People v. Andrew R. Bushey
75 N.E.3d 1165 (New York Court of Appeals, 2017)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 2002
People v. Baez
131 Misc. 2d 689 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1986)
State v. Hoskin
295 A.2d 454 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1972)
Farmer v. Moses
232 F. Supp. 154 (S.D. New York, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 676, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/froslid-v-hults-nyappdiv-1964.