## Facts

- New York enacted Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) § 9-0305(1) to protect the natural beauty of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks by regulating outdoor advertising.
- The statute generally prohibited advertising signs and structures in the parks without a permit, with limited exceptions (including certain accessory signs and signs in incorporated villages).
- For nonconforming signs in the Catskill Park that existed on May 26, 1969, the statute required removal by January 1, 1976 unless the signs were brought into compliance or permitted, effectively providing a six-and-one-half-year amortization period.
- Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. owned about 96 billboards within the Catskill Park; none conformed to the implementing regulations, and no permits had been obtained.
- Roughly two weeks before the amortization period expired, Modjeska sued seeking a declaration that the statute effected an uncompensated taking and seeking to enjoin enforcement requiring sign removal.
- The trial court denied a preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment to the State; the Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals affirmed. A trade association’s attempt to intervene was not granted.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring removal of nonconforming billboards in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks after a six-and-one-half-year amortization period constitutes a taking requiring just compensation under the federal or state constitutions.
2. Whether regulating and prohibiting outdoor advertising in the Catskill Park violates constitutional protections for speech.
3. Whether the statutory and regulatory scheme violates equal protection or conflicts with other New York statutes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals upheld ECL § 9-0305(1) and the implementing regulations as constitutional.
- The State may require removal of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks without paying compensation when the owner has been given a reasonable amortization period.
- Aesthetics and protection of scenic and environmental resources are legitimate governmental objectives supporting regulation under the police power.
- The six-and-one-half-year amortization period was reasonable and not confiscatory on this record.
- The remaining constitutional and statutory objections did not warrant invalidating the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Government may regulate land use to protect aesthetics and environmental values as a valid exercise of the police power.
- Elimination of a nonconforming use may be accomplished without monetary compensation if a reasonable amortization period provides a fair opportunity to recoup investment.
- Whether an amortization period is reasonable depends on balancing the public interest served against the private hardship imposed; no physical appropriation or transfer of title is required for regulation to be valid.
- A late-filed challenge does not alter the constitutional analysis where the owner had the full amortization period to adjust operations and compliance.

## Conclusion

New York’s requirement that nonconforming Catskill Park billboards be removed by a fixed date after a multi-year amortization period was upheld as a valid police-power regulation serving scenic and environmental goals, and it did not require just compensation.


Modjeska Sign Studios, Inc. v. Berle, 43 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. 1977)