Mogul Media, Inc. v. City of New York

18‐0193 Mogul Media, Inc., et al. v. City of New York, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of December, two thousand and eighteen.

Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON Circuit Judges. GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD District Judge* ______________________

MOGUL MEDIA, INC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v.            18‐0193

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

Defendants‐Appellees.†

Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States District Court for the District of *

Vermont, sitting by designation. † The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.

______________________

For Plaintiffs‐Appellants: RICHARD T. WALSH, Horing, Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Williston Park, NY.

For Defendants‐Appellees: JEREMY W. SHWEDER, Assistant Counsel (Richard Dearing and Claude S. Platton, of counsel, on the brief), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.)

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs,  owners  or  lessees  of  property  in  the  City  of  New  York  on  which billboards are or have been displayed, appeal from an Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.) granting the City of New York’s (“City”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s judgment holding that  the  City  did  not  violate  their  First  Amendment  rights.1  We  assume  the  parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues for review. The standard of review is well known.2

1 Plaintiffs brought additional claims under federal law but do not challenge the dismissal of those claims on appeal. 2 We review “the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, taking as true the material facts alleged in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 1998). To survive a motion to dismiss under

Plaintiffs  challenge  the  constitutionality  of  New  York  City  Zoning  Resolution (“ZR”) §§ 42‐55 and 32‐662,3 as applied to their properties. They contend that because the City  “zon[ed]  City  owned  parks  and  properties  differently  from  other  lands  similarly situated  and  owned  by  private  owners,”  J.A.  31–32,  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  “a money  making  scheme,”  Appellant  Br.  24,  the  City  violated  their  First  Amendment rights.  Plaintiffs  point  to  offsite  advertising  signs  permitted  at  the  New  York Metropolitans’  Citi  Field  ballpark,  located  within  the  City‐owned  Flushing  Meadows‐ Corona  Park,  to  support  their  argument  that  ZR  §§ 42‐55  and  32‐662  are unconstitutionally underinclusive.

However,  the  City  neither  exempted  Flushing  Meadows‐Corona  Park  from  ZR §§ 42‐55 and 32‐662, nor deliberately zoned the parkland so as to avoid those regulations. Flushing Meadows‐Corona Park is not zoned, a designation that has not changed since at  least  1961.  City‐owned  parkland  is  governed  by  the  public  trust  doctrine,  a  state common law theory under which “[o]nly the state legislature has the power to alienate parkland.”  Avella  v.  City  of  New  York,  29  N.Y.3d  425,  431  (2017).  “Even  though  a municipality may own the land dedicated to public use, ‘ . . . the power to regulate those

rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is properly dismissed, where, as a matter of law, “the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 558. 3 ZR §§ 42‐55 and 32‐662 prohibit arterial highway “offsite” advertising signs in high‐density commercial and manufacturing districts, respectively, but permit so‐called “onsite” signs.

uses  [is]  vested  solely  in  the  [state]  legislature.’”  Id.  at  431  (first  brackets  in  original) (quoting Potter v. Collis, 156 N.Y. 16, 30 (1898)). In 1961 the State authorized construction of  Shea  Stadium  (later  replaced  by  Citi  Field)  and  appurtenant  structures  at  Flushing Meadow Park (now Flushing Meadows‐Corona Park), codified in section 18‐118 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. See also id. at 432–35 (outlining grant of alienation of Flushing Meadow Park).

Therefore,  any  challenge  premised  on  the  allegation  that  the  City  deliberately zoned Plaintiffs’ property differently from its own parkland property has no basis in law or fact. The City does not have the authority to regulate Flushing Meadows‐Corona Park. At most, New York State allowed construction of Citi Field and appurtenant structures, including the signs of which Plaintiffs complain.

We have considered Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk