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
RESPONDENT WAS A CUSTOMER OF PETITIONER SECURITIES CORPORATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FIRA) RULES AND THEREFORE COULD COMPEL ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PRIVATE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATED THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THAT ADDRESS; THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
RECENT CHANGES TO THE STATUTES: (1) REQUIRING A LANDLORD TO MITIGATE DAMAGES WHEN A TENANT ABANDONS A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE; AND (2), APPLYNG A SECURITY DEPOSIT TO REPAIRS, INTERPRETED AND APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE COURT’S MOTION TIMETABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Contractor Created Hazardous Condition by Inadequate Salting
THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).
THE LLC’S FAILURE TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT; PARTIES TO WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED AFTER THE LIS PENDENS WAS FILED ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE RESULT IN THIS ACTION (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...