ELR Citation: ELR 20475
No(s). 01-7329 (2d Cir. Jan 24, 2002)

The court affirms a district court holding that a village's sign ordinance did not violate the First Amendment as it contained permissible restrictions on the number, size, and location of signs on residential property, the duration for which signs may remain on residential property, and the presence of off-site commercial advertising. The village enacted an ordinance prohibiting the use of commercial signs or any form of advertising on residential property other than professional signs, which consisted of the signs of doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, brokers, and any other major profession licensed by the state. A group representing real estate licensees brought this suit claiming that the ordinance violated the First Amendment. The court first holds that the district court correctly held that on its face, the ordinance directly advances the village's stated interests in aesthetics and safety. The court also holds that the ordinance is not more extensive than necessary to serve the village's interest in aesthetics and safety. The court next holds that nothing on the face of the ordinance prohibits the real estate licensees from displaying real estate signs or otherwise conveying their message.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (11pp., ELR Order No. L-442).

Counsel for Plaintiff
Howard W. Goldson
Goldson & Nolan Associates
425 Broadhollow Rd., Melville NY 11747
(631) 844-0220/0349

Counsel for Defendant
John M. Spellman
Spellman, Walsh, Rice, Schure & Markus
229 7th St., Ste. 100, Garden City NY 11530
(516) 747-1640