The New York herald., 1922-03-12
ELECTRIC SIGN BAN
UPHELD BY COURT
Decision Affects Fifth Ave.,
Madison Ave., 54th and
57th Streets.

A decision handed down by Justice
Davis OF the Supreme Court will result
In the removal OF all projecting and
Illuminated signs on the fronts of build
ings on Fifth avenue from Washington
square to 10th street. on Madison ave-
nue. from Thirty-fourth to Seventy-sec-
ond street, on Thirty-fourth street from
Fourth to Seventh avenue, and on
Fifty-seventh street from Lexington
avenue to Broadway.
Justice Davis's decision confirms the
validity and constitutionality OF the en-
tire sign ordinance and paves the way
for the extension of the same to other
streets where the property owners and
business men have requested such ac-
ton from the Board of Aldermen.
The ordinance was secured by the
Fifth Avenue Association, at the request
Of the property interests. In the year
1916. and under the terms thereof for
bids the erection Of Illuminated signs or
signs projecting more than one foot be-
yond the building line In the streets
mentioned above. The original ordi-
nance affected Fifth avenue alone, and
on December 23, 1920. at the request OF
the Fifth Avenue Association. this or.
dinance was extended by the Board OF
Aldermen to Madison avenue. Thirty
fourth street and Fifty-seventh street.
A provision was contained In this or
d.nance revoking the licenses for all
Illuminated signs. irrespective OF the
date OF erection, after December 20
1921. In addition an amendment was
made to this ordinance on December 10.
1921, excepting from the provisions OF
the ordinance, Illuminated signs exist
ing upon theater or other places OF
amusement on December IL, l92l.
On December 90. 1921, the Commits
sioner of public Works, under the city
ordinance. directed the removal of all
signs in the territory covered by the sign
ordinance. Practically all those who
maintained signs on Fifth avenue and
Fifty-seventh street complied. However,
five injunctions were obtained by inter-
ests on Thirty-fourth street to prevent
the removal of their signs. The cases
were based on the claim that the ordi-
nance is discriminatory and unconstitu-
tional," because 1t permits Illuminated
signs on other streets in the city. but
prohibits their erection on the streets
mentioned, and also because it grants
an exclusive privilege to persons en-
gagged in the theatrical business along
the streets and avenues of New York"
Assistant Corporation Counsel Martin
II. Murphy was designated by the city to
represent It, and argued in favor of the
validity of the ordinance. After
lengthy hearing Justice Davis handed
down a decision which holds that the
entire ordinance is not alone valid. but
beneficial to the dignity and Importance
of the Fifth avenue district.
In granting the motion for dismissal
of the complaint Justice Davis says:
Under the Greater New York Charter
-
Constitution and laws of the State. has
authority to adopt ordinances regulating
the use and maintenance of signs ex-
tending over and upon the streets OF
the city. The Board of Aldermen are the
judges as to what ordinances they will
pass to carry out and preserve the inter-
ests of the municipality, and unless an
ordinance passed by them Is wholly ar
bitrary and unreasonable 1t should be
upheld. The necessity and advisability
of the ordinance are for the legislative
power to determine. The presumption is
In favor of the ordinance
The first contention of the plaintiffs
that the ordinances are unconstitu-
tional because they discriminate against
people located on the specified street
and avenues in favor Of all other locali-
ties in the city cannot be upheld II is
disposed OF by the failure OF the
plaintiffs to allege any facts In the COM
plants which. IL true. would tend to
show that the ordinances were arbitrary
or unreasonable and unlawfully dis
criminatory against all other localities
in the city"
Justice Davis concludes by saying
that none of the complaints submitted
state a sufficient cause Of grievance
and explains his dismissal OF these COM
plants and upholds the necessity for
this ordinance In the following words:
Their real grievance is that the
streets named have been set apart from
all other streets of the city as areas
within which there shall be no illumi-
mated signs. There is no doubt that
advertising by illuminated signs Is very
beneficial to business. At the same time
the multiplication OF those outstanding
signs in this very busy section OF the
city easily can become an eyesore, n
nuisance and an improper use Of the air
space over the thoroughfares.
1--WE may assume that the Board of
Aldermen before passing this restric-
tive ordinance gave due consideration
to the interests of those heretofore
maintaining illuminated signs on Thir-
ty-fourth street and that the ordinance
was adopted as the result OF Its de-
liberate judgment that the interest. |
comfort and convenience OF the public