Opinion
September 26, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Celli, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent's "just compensation" argument was properly rejected for the reasons stated at Special Term. The Federal Highway Beautification Act ( 23 U.S.C. § 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, 60 N.Y.2d 70, 76; rearg denied 61 N.Y.2d 670). Respondent lacks standing to raise a 1st Amendment overbreadth challenge to the ordinance as it has made no showing of any direct interest in noncommercial speech or any commercial interest in others who have such an interest (Syracuse Sav. Bank v Town of DeWitt, 56 N.Y.2d 671, appeal dismissed 459 U.S. 803).