City of Schenectady v. Alumni Ass'n of Union Chapter, Delta Chi Fraternity

• Decision Date: 19 December 1957
• Citation: 5 A.D.2d 14,168 N.Y.S.2d 754
• Parties: CITY OF SCHENECTADY, New York, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF UNION CHAPTER, DELTA CHI FRATERNITY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 754

168 N.Y.S.2d 754

5 A.D.2d 14

CITY OF SCHENECTADY, New York, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF UNION CHAPTER, DELTA CHI FRATERNITY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Dec. 19, 1957.

Homer E. Peters, Albany (Charles A. Brind, Jr., Albany, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Charles Ward Brown, Corp. Counsel, Schenectady, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and GIBSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In 1927 the City of Schenectady adopted a Zoning Ordinance which divided the city into seven districts which included, among others, 'A'--Single-Family Residence District; 'B'--Two-Family Residence District, and 'C'--Multiple Dwelling District. At the time of the adoption of the ordinance the property in question was occupied as a one-family house, for which it was designed. Practically all of the houses in the vicinity were likewise designed and occupied. Later the house concerned here became unoccupied for a considerable time and was eventually, in 1948, purchased on contract by defendant upon condition that the ordinance could be changed to permit its use as a college chapter house of a fraternity.

The record seems clear that the premises became occupied by the student members of the Union College Chapter of the fraternity with full knowledge of the fact that the house was in the 'A' single-family residence zone, and in the belief that the ordinance could not would be changed by amendment to permit such occupancy. Extensive efforts were made to obtain such a change in the ordinance without success. Now defendant contends that: (1) a college fraternity with twenty-three resident members is 'a single family'; (2) that, as applied to the facts surrounding defendant's situation, the Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional, discriminatory and so inequitable that injunctive relief should not have been granted.

In support of the first contention defendant relies principally upon City of Syracuse v. Snow, 123 Misc. 568, 205 N.Y.S. 785. An examination of that case, which was not appealed, reveals a more inequitable situation, involving numerous sororities, than exists here. Insofar as that case is urged as an authority for the proposition that a group of twenty-three students, unrelated by blood and coming from widely separated localities, constitute a 'single family' within the meaning of this Zoning Ordinance, we decline to follow it. Considering the...