Matter of Atlantic Outdoor Adv., Inc. v Srinivasan

Annotate this Case
Matter of Atlantic Outdoor Adv., Inc. v Srinivasan 2013 NY Slip Op 06967 Decided on October 29, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 29, 2013
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman, Clark, JJ.
10740 103078/12

[*1]In re Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Meenakshi Srinivasan, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.




Rothkrug Rothkrug & Spector, LLP, Great Neck (Simon H.
Rothkrug of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta
Ross of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered December 7, 2012, denying the petition to annul the determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (BSA), dated June 5, 2012, which denied petitioner's appeal of a determination of respondent Department of Buildings finding that the subject rooftop sign was not an "advertising sign," and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

BSA's determination that the rooftop sign at issue qualified as an accessory business sign rather than as an "advertising sign" under Zoning Resolution § 12-10 was not arbitrary and
capricious (cf. Matter of Mazza & Avena v Chin, 261 AD2d 546 [2d Dept 1999]). The court properly deferred to BSA's fact-based analysis as to whether the accessory use of the sign was clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with the principal use of the property (see Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 91 NY2d 413 [1998]; see also Matter of Chelsea Bus. & Prop. Owners' Assn.,
LLC v City of New York, 107 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 29, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.