Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle
43 N.Y.2d 468, 402 N.Y.S.2d 359, 373 N.E.2d 255 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may, under its police power, require the removal of nonconforming uses, such as billboards, without providing monetary compensation, provided that a reasonable amortization period is given to allow the property owner an opportunity to recoup their investment.
Facts:
- The State of New York enacted ECL 9-0305 to regulate advertising signs in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks to preserve their natural beauty.
- The law required any nonconforming signs existing as of May 26, 1969, to be removed by January 1, 1976, which created a six and one-half year amortization period.
- Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. owned approximately 96 outdoor advertising signs located within Catskill Park.
- None of Modjeska's signs conformed to the new regulations.
- Just two weeks before the amortization period was set to expire, Modjeska commenced an action to prevent the removal of its signs.
Procedural Posture:
- Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. (plaintiff) sued the State in Supreme Court, Albany County (the trial court), to declare ECL 9-0305 unconstitutional and enjoin the removal of its signs.
- The trial court denied Modjeska's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the State's cross-motion for summary judgment, declaring the statute constitutional.
- Modjeska (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Modjeska (appellant) then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law requiring the removal of nonconforming advertising signs after a six and one-half year amortization period, without providing monetary compensation, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
No. A law requiring the removal of nonconforming signs without compensation after an amortization period is a valid exercise of the police power and does not constitute an unconstitutional taking, provided that the amortization period is reasonable. The state's police power allows it to regulate private property for the general welfare, including for aesthetic purposes. Such a regulation is not a taking if it does not deprive an owner of all reasonable use of their property; prohibiting billboards does not render the underlying land valueless. While immediate removal for aesthetic reasons might be unreasonable, the use of an amortization period strikes a balance between the public interest and the private owner's investment-backed expectations by providing an opportunity to recoup the investment. The constitutionality of the law as applied depends on the reasonableness of the amortization period, which must be determined by balancing the public gain against the private loss. Because the lower courts did not conduct a factual inquiry into the reasonableness of the six-and-a-half-year period, the case must be remanded for a hearing on that issue.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the constitutionality of using amortization periods as a tool for municipal planning to phase out nonconforming uses without resorting to eminent domain and compensation. It distinguishes between police power regulations based on safety, which may justify immediate abatement, and those based on aesthetics, which generally require a reasonable grace period to protect property interests. The case establishes a fact-intensive balancing test for determining the reasonableness of an amortization period, shifting the focus of legal challenges from the facial validity of the regulation to an as-applied analysis of its economic impact. This gives municipalities a clear legal framework for eliminating undesirable land uses while providing a basis for property owners to challenge periods they deem confiscatory.
