People v. Goodman, 31 N.Y.2d 262 (1972)

A municipality may enact ordinances based on aesthetic considerations, provided such regulations are reasonable and substantially related to the community’s economic, social, and cultural patterns.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of a drugstore owner for violating a village ordinance that restricted the size of commercial signs to four square feet. The ordinance, enacted to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the Village of Ocean Beach on Fire Island, was challenged as an invalid exercise of police power. The court found that the ordinance was a reasonable measure to preserve the community’s appearance and did not unduly infringe on the defendant’s rights or the public’s access to essential services. The court also addressed the procedural aspects of claiming discriminatory enforcement of a law.

Facts

Goodman operated a drugstore in the Village of Ocean Beach, a small summer resort community on Fire Island. He maintained four signs exceeding the village ordinance’s four-square-foot limit for commercial signs. The village enacted the ordinance in 1967 to conform to federal regulations aimed at preserving the natural beauty of the Fire Island National Seashore. Goodman was charged with violating the ordinance.

Procedural History

Goodman was found guilty in the trial court and fined $100. He appealed, arguing the ordinance was an invalid exercise of police power as applied to him. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the village ordinance limiting the size of commercial signs is a valid exercise of police power, particularly considering aesthetic purposes and potential impact on health and safety.
2. Whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether the ordinance was discriminatorily enforced against Goodman.

Holding

1. Yes, because aesthetics is a valid subject of legislative concern, and the ordinance was reasonably related to preserving the appearance of the community, especially given its unique cultural and natural features.
2. No, because the ordinance explicitly proscribes the erection or maintenance of commercial signs in excess of four square feet, providing fair notice of the prohibited conduct.
3. No, because Goodman failed to meet the heavy burden of showing conscious, intentional discrimination in the enforcement of the law.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that municipalities have the power to regulate outdoor advertising under the police power, and aesthetics is a valid basis for such regulation. The court stated, “It is now settled that aesthetics is a valid subject of legislative concern and that reasonable legislation designed to promote the governmental interest in preserving the appearance of the community represents a valid and permissible exercise of the police power.” The court emphasized the unique setting of Ocean Beach, a small summer resort community within the Fire Island National Seashore, which Congress sought to conserve. The court found that the ordinance was reasonably related to this objective and was not unduly oppressive. The court dismissed Goodman’s argument that the ordinance contravened health and safety aspects, noting that his drugstore was primarily a commercial enterprise. Regarding vagueness, the court found the ordinance explicitly proscribed signs exceeding four square feet, providing fair notice. Finally, the court addressed Goodman’s claim of discriminatory enforcement, stating that such a claim requires demonstrating “conscious, intentional discrimination.” While the court found Goodman’s claim unsubstantiated, it suggested that future claims of discriminatory enforcement should be addressed to the court before trial as a motion to dismiss, rather than as an affirmative defense. This approach, the court explained, addresses the integrity of the judicial process itself, ensuring fairness and equal treatment under the law. The court emphasized that the defendant still retains the “heavy burden of showing that a pattern of discrimination has been consciously practiced against him and that the law has been administered ‘with an evil eye and an unequal hand’.”