Protecting a Tenant's Right to Be Seen: Key Points for Drafting Signage Clauses
Scott R. Kipnis, Nicholas B. Malito and Jennifer Haberman provide guidance to attorneys as to the suggested signage provisions to be included when negotiating a commercial lease in New York, and discuss the importance of ensuring that tenant's rights and landlord obligations pertaining to signage are expressly addressed in the lease.
June 27, 2017 at 12:00 AM
16 minute read
When negotiating a lease on behalf of a commercial tenant, an attorney should be mindful of both the legal and business aspects of the transaction. While all tenants seek quiet enjoyment, it is important to recognize that perhaps equally central are vehicular visibility and foot traffic. After all, without customers, tenants cannot afford to pay rent.
Landlords should also not overlook the fact that an individual tenant's success is critical to the success of a shopping center. One of the most important factors that can affect a tenant's visibility and the success of a shopping center is a tenant's signs. Therefore, it is in the best interest of both landlord and tenant attorneys to craft language that gives the tenant the right to install the signage it deems best suited for the tenant's branding and financial success, while balancing the needs of the public and the shopping center. This article will provide guidance to attorneys as to the suggested signage provisions to be included when negotiating a commercial lease in New York, and will discuss the importance of ensuring that tenant's rights and landlord obligations pertaining to signage are expressly addressed in the lease.
The primary way of attracting customers to a retail store is by publicizing the location through the use of storefront signs, pylons or monument signs. A restriction on the size of the letters, the permitted colors, the height of a pylon or the manner of illumination can have a damaging effect on the number of potential customers and gross sales. Prior to signing a lease, tenants should conduct due diligence in order to determine any applicable government regulations or ordinances affecting their rights to install signs and should verify whether there are any restrictions on the size of letters permitted, the height of pylon signs, the illumination of storefront signs or any other limitations affecting their signs. In the event that such restrictions exist, it is important to determine whether they are imposed by the landlord or by law. Tenants should also inquire whether the landlord has created specific sign criteria for the shopping center while negotiating the letter of intent. For example, if a landlord has a rule or regulation requiring that all tenants have uniform lettering or a uniform color scheme, this can have a detrimental effect on a national tenant with its own brand and logo. Such a tenant should seek to carve out an exception at the outset allowing it to have similar signage to that in place at the tenant's other locations in the same region.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readFinancial Disclosures in Prenups: The Legal, Personal, and Strategic Considerations
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250