Yung Brothers Real Estate Co. v. Limandri

92 A.D.3d 508, 938 N.Y.2d 425

Opinion

The ALJ correctly found that, to demonstrate their right to maintain the nonconforming advertising sign on their premises, petitioners were required to show that there was an advertising sign on the premises at the time the ordinance prohibiting advertising signs took effect (see Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise, 51 NY2d 278, 284 [1980]). The ALJ’s determination that petitioners failed to make this showing is supported by substantial evidence. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Yung Brothers Real Estate Co. v. Limandri, 92 A.D.3d 508, 938 N.Y.2d 425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 508 (Yung Brothers Real Estate Co. v. Limandri) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise
414 N.E.2d 651 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)