Rochester Poster Advertising Co. v. Town of Penfield

46 A.D.2d 726, 360 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3880
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 726 (Rochester Poster Advertising Co. v. Town of Penfield) 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
Rochester Poster Advertising Co. v. Town of Penfield, 46 A.D.2d 726, 360 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff brings this action for a judgment declaring that the Town of Penfield’s sign ordinance passed in 1970, as it affected plaintiff’s property, was confiscatory, unconstitutional and ultra vires because it attempted to regulate in an area pre-empted by the State of New York. Special Term dismissed its complaint for legal insufficiency, found that the town ordinance was constitutional and the area of road signs it regulated had not been pre-empted by the State. Plaintiff alleged that it erected nine billboards in the Town of Penfield in the years 1936-1953 inclusive, and that these billboards were legal and permitted uses when erected. It did not allege that it obtained special permits which were required by existing town ordinances when these billboards were erected. The existence of a lawful nonconforming use is a necessary element of a cause of action declaring an ordinance such as that involved herein unconstitutional (Rapasadi v. Phillips, 2 A D 2d 451). Since no allegation was made that the necessary permits were obtained, the complaint was properly dismissed (Heram Holding Corp. v. City of Albany, 33 A D 2d 1086). We basé our decision solely on this ground and do not pass on any of the other points discussed by Special Term. (Appeal from order of [727]*727Monroe Special Term in declaratory judgment action.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Mahoney, Goldman and Del Veeehio, JJ.

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

Related

Corsetti v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Henrietta
59 A.D.2d 1018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Rochester Poster Advertising Co. v. Town of Penfield
51 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.2d 726, 360 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochester-poster-advertising-co-v-town-of-penfield-nyappdiv-1974.