Background

• Defendant was charged in five informations with placing a sign advertising an optician's business on public property in Brookhaven, violating Code § 57A-11(B).
• Counsel entered not guilty pleas and moved to dismiss, arguing Chapter 57A fails Town’s stated purposes, that terms are vague, and that the entire chapter is unconstitutional due to favoritism toward commercial speech.
• District Court denied the motion; defendant pled guilty to all five informations on February 9, 2012.
• Chapter 57A overall regulates signs to avoid unsightly proliferation, protect traffic safety, and govern commercial versus noncommercial expression, including bans on offsite advertising and limits on sign size and placement.
• The court ultimately held Chapter 57A unconstitutional as a whole, prohibiting enforcement of § 57A-11(B); judgments reversed, accusatory instruments dismissed, and any fines remitted.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1981) (time, place, and manner restrictions may be content-neutral but must serve substantial interests)
• City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1994) (government may regulate signs; noncommercial speech protection context)
• Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1995) (commercial speech is protected but subject to intermediate scrutiny)
• Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n. of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (four-part test for commercial speech regulation)
• Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1976) (commercial speech receives some protection but under distinct standards)
• Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (narrow tailoring and substantial relation to interest standard applied to tailored restrictions)
• United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1993) (constitutionality judged by overall relation to problem; not per-case focus)
• Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (U.S. 2001) (commercial speech must be narrowly tailored to government interests)
• Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (U.S. 1993) (government must show real harms and material relief from regulation)
• National Adv. Co. v Town of Babylon, 900 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1990) (severability in statutory schemes when unconstitutional provisions are intertwined)
• Lamar Adv. of Penn, LLC v Town of Orchard Park, 356 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2004) (severability and interrelation of commercial speech provisions)
• Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 73 N.Y.2d 544 (1989) (state zoning and speech regulation standards; substantial relation to end)
• Paterson v. University of State of N.Y., 14 N.Y.2d 432 (1964) (presumption of constitutionality for zoning acts; legislative wisdom in policy matters)
• Matter of Sulzer v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 165 A.D.2d 270 (1991) (local government power to regulate public areas with speech restrictions)