Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
Respondent's "just compensation" argument was properly rejected for the reasons stated at Special Term. The Federal Highway Beautification Act (23 USC § 131) does not preclude a holding that "petitioners are entitled to no more than a reasonable amortization period" (Matter of Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Town of Southampton,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.