From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Take Two Outdoor Media LLC v. Bd. of Standards & Appeals of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2017
146 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

01-31-2017

In re TAKE TWO OUTDOOR MEDIA LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent–Respondent.

Akerman LLP, New York (Richard G. Leland of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.


Akerman LLP, New York (Richard G. Leland of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for respondent.

MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered July 20, 2015, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent, dated January 15, 2013, which denied the appeal from the Department of Buildings' denial of registration for petitioner's outdoor advertising sign, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent rationally determined that the United States Bulkhead Line running along the Bronx shoreline of the Harlem River does not constitute a "boundary of the City of New York" within the meaning of New York City Zoning Resolution § 42–55(d) and therefore that petitioner's outdoor advertising sign does not fall within the exception to the Zoning Resolution set forth in that provision.

The determination was not arbitrary and capricious. While the Department of Buildings had previously granted a permit based on a finding that the sign fell within the above exception to the Zoning Resolution, it was entitled to correct the mistake that led to its approval of the permit (Matter of Parkview Assoc. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 525 N.Y.S.2d 176, 519 N.E.2d 1372 [1988], cert. denied 488 U.S. 801, 109 S.Ct. 30 [1988] ), and the record adequately reflects the reasons for the change in course so as to allow for meaningful appellate review (see Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516, 520, 498 N.Y.S.2d 111, 488 N.E.2d 1223 [1985] ).


Summaries of

Take Two Outdoor Media LLC v. Bd. of Standards & Appeals of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 31, 2017
146 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Take Two Outdoor Media LLC v. Bd. of Standards & Appeals of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:In re TAKE TWO OUTDOOR MEDIA LLC, Petitioner–Appellant, v. BOARD OF…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 31, 2017

Citations

146 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
48 N.Y.S.3d 653
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 593

Citing Cases

Baychester Retail III LLC v. Perlmutter

This contention is unavailing. In its resolution, BSA meaningfully distinguished petitioner's revised…

Baychester Retail III LLC v. Perlmutter

Insofar as DOB's determination is inconsistent with any of its past decisions, the doctrine of judicial…