As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether a New York City law regulating companies that provide outdoor advertising space “to others” applied where one company provides advertising space to another company, but both companies are owned by the same person. The Court (Wilson, J.) held that the city law does apply under those circumstances.
The Court based its holding on the plain meaning of the term “others,” explaining that the “most natural reading” of that term was “distinct legal entities.” Thus, “by advertising a distinct legal entity on their buildings,” petitioners had “made space available to others” as that term was used in the city law. This result was also consistent with legislative intent, inasmuch as the scheme regulating outdoor signage was to “expand the regulations of outdoor advertising” and “minimize the visual blight these signs represent.”
Return to the case page for Matter of Franklin Street v. NYC Environmental Control Board.