MATTER OF TAKE TWO OUTDOOR MEDIA LLC v. BOARD OF STDS. & APPEALS OF CITY OF N.Y., 146 A.D.3d 715 (2017)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20170131322
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2017
Summary: 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 grant
Summary: 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 grante..
More
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 [1988], cert denied 488 U.S. 801 [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 [1985]).
Source: Leagle
