Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. v. City of Syracuse

210 A.D.2d 907, 620 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13369

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The Planning Commission’s determination that the proposed signs would adversely affect traffic and traffic safety is supported by substantial evidence, based on the City Traffic Engineer’s testimony that the proposed outdoor advertising signs would distract motorists and impair the visibility of traffic signals. That testimony may be considered substantial evidence despite the existence of a similar quantum of conflicting evidence that would support a different conclusion (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271; Matter of Warner v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 99 AD2d 680, 681). The Planning Commission’s determination that the proposed signs would not be compatible with the visual, aesthetic or physical environment of the buildings and uses in the immediate vicinity likewise is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Article 78.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The Planning Commission’s determination that the proposed signs would adversely affect traffic and traffic safety is supported by substantial evidence, based on the City Traffic Engineer’s testimony that the proposed outdoor advertising signs would distract motorists and impair the visibility of traffic signals. That testimony may be considered substantial evidence despite the existence of a similar quantum of conflicting evidence that would support a different conclusion (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271; Matter of Warner v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 99 AD2d 680, 681). The Planning Commission’s determination that the proposed signs would not be compatible with the visual, aesthetic or physical environment of the buildings and uses in the immediate vicinity likewise is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Article 78.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. v. City of Syracuse, 210 A.D.2d 907, 620 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 907 (Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. v. City of Syracuse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related