Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. Culley
| Citation | 261 N.Y. 506,185 N.E. 714 |
| Parties | In the Matter of FOX MEADOW ESTATES, Inc., Appellant, against Earl C. CULLEY, as Building Inspector of the Village of Scarsdale, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1933 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (233 App. Div. 250, 252 N. Y. S. 178), entered October 5, 1931, resettling a prior order, entered July 22, 1931, which reversed on the law and facts an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory order of mandamus to compel the defendant to accept, receive, and file applications and to issue permits for the erection of apartment houses on the property of the petitioner in the village of Scarsdale. By a zoning ordinance theretofore enacted only one-family residences might be erected on the land in question. The petitioner asserted that that part of the ordinance was unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory and in violation of section 6 of article 1 of the State Constitution, and of articles 5 and 14 of the Amendments of the United States Constitution, that the zoning ordinance did not carry out the zoning principles expressed in the Village Law (Consol. Laws, c. 64), and that the building ordinance of the village, in so far as it required the fireproofing of apartments, was never properly enacted, and that it was void because it unduly deprived the petitioner of the fair use of its property.
Frank H. Hiscock, of Syracuse, and Henry K. Heyman, of New York City, for appellant.
Nathan L. Miller, Edward M. Bassett, Humphrey J. Lynch, John H. Jackson, and William Cravath White, all of New York City, for respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc.
...at pp. 306 and 307--308; Fox Meadow Estates v. Culley (1931) 233 App.Div. 250, 251--252, 252 N.Y.S. 178, 179--180, aff'd. (1933) 261 N.Y. 506--507, 185 N.E. 714; cf. Nehrbas v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor (1957) 2 N.Y.2d 190, 195, 159 N.Y.S.2d 145, 140 N.E.2d 241, 244; Gardner v. L......
-
Pascack Ass'n, Ltd. v. Mayor and Council of Washington Tp., Bergen County
...78 A.2d 435 (App.Div.1951); Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. Culley, 233 App.Div. 250, 252 N.Y.S. 178 (App.Div.1931), affirmed, 261 N.Y. 506, 185 N.E. 714 (Ct.App.1933). And elsewhere it has been broadly said that circumstances may permit a municipality to zone for a single use to retain its res......
-
Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven
...v. Burden, 241 N.Y. 288, 301, 150 N.E. 120, 123-124; Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. Culley, 233 App.Div. 250, 252 N.Y.S. 178, aff'd, 261 N.Y. 506, 185 N.E. 714) and even aesthetic considerations (see People v. Stover, 12 N.Y.2d 462, 240 N.Y.S.2d 734, 191 N.E.2d 272; Chusud Realty Corp. v. Vill......
-
City of Corpus Christi v. Jones
...2d Ed., 325; Smith v. Collison, 119 Cal.App. 180, 6 P.2d 277; City of Aurora v. Burns, 319 Ill. 84, 149 N.E. 784; Fox Meadow Estates v. Culley, 261 N.Y. 506, 185 N.E. 714; American Wood Products Co. v. Minneapolis, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d The City of Corpus Christi, in its brief, contends that in t......