Case Name: In the Matter of Mid-State Advertising Corporation, Appellant, against John A. Bond, as Fire Marshal and Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Troy, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1937-04-27
Citations: 274 N.Y. 82
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Mid-State Advertising Corporation, Appellant, against John A. Bond, as Fire Marshal and Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Troy, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 82–90

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Mid-State Advertising Corporation, Appellant, against John A. Bond, as Fire Marshal and Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Troy, Respondent.
Argued January 27, 1937;
decided April 27, 1937.
John H. Broderick for appellant.
The ordinance adopted by the Common Council of the city of Troy, adding section 6-a to the zoning ordinance of the city of Troy, is unconstitutional and void. (Cowan v. City of Buffalo; 247 App. Div. 591; Fisher Co. v. Woods, 187 N. Y. 90, Matter of Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98; People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389; People v. Ewer, 141 N. Y. 129; City of Worcester v. Worcester Con. St. Ry. Co., 196 U. S. 539; City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 250 U. S. 394; Matter of McAneny v. Bd. of Estimate, 232 N. Y. 377; People v. Kuc, 272 N. Y. 72; People ex rel. Friend v. City of Chicago, 261 Ill. 16; City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 122 App. Div. 748; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219; Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U. S. 504; Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325; Matter of Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288; Thousand Island Park Assn. v. Tucker, 173 N. Y. 203; People ex rel. Wineburgh Advertising Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126; People ex rel. Standard Bill Posting Co. v. Hastings, 77 Misc. Rep. 453; 153 App. Div. 920; 207 N. Y. 763; Varney & Green v. Williams, 155 Cal. 318.)
Frank S. Parmenter, Corporation Counsel (John P. Judge of counsel), for respondent.
The ordinance is presumptively valid and constitutional and the burden is on the petitioner to show the contrary. (People ex rel. City of Rochester v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; Village of North Pelham v. Ohliger, 216 App. Div. 728; Matter of Wolfsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288; Town of Islip v. Summers Coal & Lumber Co., 257 N. Y. 167; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365; O’Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U. S. 251.) The ordinance is not confiscatory, unreasonable, arbitrary or unequal. (Rice v. Van Vranken, 132 Misc. Rep. 82; City of Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510; Perlmutter v. Greene, 259 N. Y. 327; Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U. S. 526.) The ordinance does not exceed the express and implied powers of the city. (City of Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510; People ex rel. Dunn v. Ham, 166 N. Y. 477; People ex rel. Wineburgh Advertising Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126; Matter of Stubbe v. Adamson, 173 App. Div. 305; Matter of Wolfsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288.)

Opinion:
Loughran, J.
Appellant applied to the respondent, as Superintendent of Buildings of the city of Troy, for permits to erect billboards for general advertising purposes on property of the appellant in that city. The application was denied under an ordinance of the city which provides: " It shall be unlawful to construct or erect any billboard and/or signboard within the corporate limits of the City of Troy, except upon real property owned or leased by the occupants thereof and for the sole purpose of advertising the sale of such real property or of merchandise kept for sale upon such premises. The provision of this Ordinance shall not apply to sky signs, as provided for in Section 172 of the Building Code, erected or to be erected upon buildings three stories or more in height."
A peremptory order of mandamus directing issuance of the permits so applied for was granted by the Special Term. The Appellate Division reversed on the law. The single question presented to us is that of the constitutional validity of the foregoing ordinance.
We think the ordinance is void on its face. It is not an attempt by zoning to exclude billboards or other advertising signs from localities where such devices might mar the beauty of natural scenery or distract travelers on congested city streets. Even were we to assume that outdoor advertising on private property within public view may without compensation be restricted by law for cultural or aesthetic reasons alone, this prohibition, which includes all land in the city of Troy, without definition of the structures proscribed or other standard of regulation, cannot be sustained consistently with fundamental constitutional principles. (N. Y. Const. art. 1, § 6; U. S. Const. 14th Amend. § 1. Cf. People ex rel. Wineburgh Adv. Co. v. Murphy, 195 N. Y. 126; People ex rel. Publicity Leasing Co. v. Ludwig, 218 N. Y. 540; People v. Rubenfeld, 254 N. Y. 245, 248, 249; Perlmutter v. Greene, 259 N. Y. 327. See Opinion of Justices, 232 Mass. 605; General Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 289 Mass. 149; Freund, Police Power, § 182; Larremore, Public Aesthetics, 20 Harvard Law Review, 35.)
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.