When does tenant become building's identity?

Getting Down to Cases

The Justice Court of the Village of Valley Stream, New York was presented with an unusual issue - when does a building cease to be known by an address and instead gains its own identity and name? In other words, when did 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue become the "White House"? What is the address of the "Sears Towers" in Chicago? What is the address of the "Empire State Building"?

This question was considered when the Village of Valley Stream insisted that a large sign reading "Colonial Commercial Corp." on an office building in Valley Stream must come down because it advertised a tenant who no longer occupied the premises. The village zoning code states that "any sign which no longer advertises an existing business, shall be moved by the owner of the premises upon which such sign is located."

The Village claimed that since the tenant departed, the sign no longer advertised an "existing business." The landlord claimed that the sign does indeed advertise an existing business - which is the building itself. The building in questions is a large six-story office building situated in a commercial area on South Franklin Avenue, across the highway from the Valley Stream railroad station. It is in a commercial area.

The building opened in 1966 with its primary tenant, The Colonial Commercial Corp. The tenant erected a large sign upon the buildings roof reading "Colonial Commercial Corp." The Colonial Commercial Corp. remained in possession for more than 20 years. Following the departure of Colonial Commercial Corp., the corporation notified the village that they were no longer tenants at the building and requested that the Village demand that the landlord remove the sign. In June 1993, the Village issued a summons against the owner of the building for his failure to remove the sign.

The landlord resisted the summons, claiming he had the fight to maintain the sign. The court ruled that it is well settled that municipalities may regulate and limit the character and duration of outdoor advertising signs subject to certain constitutional guidelines. The basis of these regulations may be found in the need for community esthetics and a valid exercise of police power. It is also appropriate for a local ordinance to permit a sign to continue in existence until it no longer advertises a business on the premises.

The landlord's position was that the sign still advertises a business at that location, to wit, the building itself. For more than 20 years, the building has become known and is referred to as the "Colonial Commercial Building." The building sign has become a local landmark and has been highly visible from the Long Island Railroad and Sunrise Highway, both major arteries of commerce.

The court stated that frequently buildings take on distinct identities that go beyond what they advertise or what tenants are occupying the premises. After all, the court stated that the Chrysler Building no longer houses Chrysler, but it will always be referred to as the "Chrysler Building." The court questioned if anyone knows if the Woolworth Building still holds Woolworth as a tenant.

Village Justice Robert Bogel ruled that the sign "Colonial Commercial Corp." does indeed advertise the building itself based upon public recognition of its many years of existence at this well-known location. Justice Bogel found the defendant not guilty of violating the zoning ordinance and ruled that the sign could remain.

People v. Morris Rubin; New York Law Journal, September 14, 1994, pg. 26 Col. 6.

(Edward L. Schiff is the senior partner of the New York City law firm of Schiff, Turek, Kirschenbaum, O'Connell, LLP.)