You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS...
, ,

ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined that petitioner (Ciafone), an attorney, who used several buildings owned by his corporate entities for exterior signs promoting his law practice, engaged in unauthorized outdoor advertising and was properly penalized. Ciafone argued that the corporate entitles formed by him which owned the buildings were not “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code provision which defined an outdoor advertising company as an entity which makes advertising space available to “others:”

Administrative Code § 28-502.1 states that an OAC [outdoor advertising company] is “[a] person, corporation, partnership or other business entity that as a part of the regular conduct of its business engages in or, by way of advertising, promotions or other methods, holds itself out as engaging in the outdoor advertising business.” An Outdoor Advertising Business is “[t]he business of selling, leasing, marketing, managing, or otherwise either directly or indirectly making space on signs situated on buildings and premises within the city of New York available to others for advertising purposes, whether such advertising directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold, or offered on the same or a different zoning lot . . . .” … .

… [P]etitioners, which are corporations, made space on signs available to Ciafone’s law practice (a professional corporation), a separate and distinct entity. Of course, it is fundamental that individuals, corporations, and partnerships are each recognized as separate legal entities, and in this statutory context constitute “others” regardless of the common principal ownership or connection between the entities. Indeed, “[a]s a general rule, the law treats corporations as having an existence separate and distinct from that of their shareholders”… . …

ECB [New York City Environmental Control Board] rationally rejected petitioners’ argument that they had not made the signs available to “others.” The record shows that the building owners are not Ciafone or Ciafone P.C, but separate corporate entities, and that the advertising signs promoted legal services by Ciafone, not any services of the corporate entities that own the buildings. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, there is no basis for overturning ECB’s determination that, in these circumstances, the advertising space was made available “to others.” Nor is ECB’s interpretation of the statutory language arbitrary or irrational. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2018 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 7-19-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW  (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERTISING (SIGNS, MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER-ATTORNEY FORMED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH OWNED THE BUILDINGS ON WHICH HE POSTED SIGNS ADVERTISING HIS LAW PRACTICE, THE ADVERTISING VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE ASKED THE ADMITTEDLY BIASED JUROR WHETHER HE COULD DISREGARD A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY IF HE FELT THE OFFICER WAS LYING AND THE JUROR SAID HE COULD; THE QUESTION AND ANSWER DID NOT PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD RENDER A VERDICT SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PERSISTENT ABUSE STATUTE ENCOMPASSES THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF SEXUAL CONTACT; THE INDICTMENT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC GENRE OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED; THE INDICTMENT THEREFORE DID NOT PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE OF THE ACCUSATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS AN AVAILABLE METHOD FOR MOTHER TO SEEK CUSTODY DURING FAMILY COURT’S COVID MORATORIUM ON NONESSENTIAL MATTERS; THE PETITION PROVIDED FAMILY COURT WITH JURISDICTION WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LOST BECAUSE THE CHILDREN WERE TAKEN OUT OF STATE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONVERTED THE HABEAS PETITION TO A CUSTODY PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO CPLR 103 (C) (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE IN PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE HOTEL; AGODA’S TERMS OF USE LIMITED LIABILITY TO THE BOOKING SERVICES AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AT THE HOTEL (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN UNSECURED FENCE PANELS FELL ON HIM; HIS INJURIES ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY A MOTION, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY; THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED, AS WAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE HERE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN A COMPLEX PATERNITY CASE SPANNING EIGHT YEARS ORDER PRECLUDING CHILD FROM... OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY...