Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. Culley

Citation261 N.Y. 506,185 N.E. 714
PartiesIn the Matter of FOX MEADOW ESTATES, Inc., Appellant, against Earl C. CULLEY, as Building Inspector of the Village of Scarsdale, Respondent.
Decision Date10 January 1933
CourtNew York Court of Appeals


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
27 cases
  • Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 1973
    ...N.E.2d 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; Gardn......
  • Pascack Ass'n, Ltd. v. Mayor and Council of Washington Tp., Bergen County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 23, 1977
    ...N.J.Super. 405, 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 t......
  • Suffolk Housing Services v. Town of Brookhaven
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 20, 1977
    ...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, 10630.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 2, 1940
    ...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 the event......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT