Lawrence School Corp. v. Morris

• Decision Date: 19 November 1990
• Citation: 167 A.D.2d 467,562 N.Y.S.2d 707
• Parties: , 64 Ed. Law Rep. 886 In the Matter of LAWRENCE SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Joel J. MORRIS, etc., et al., Respondents, and Edwin Wegman, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 707

562 N.Y.S.2d 707

167 A.D.2d 467, 64 Ed. Law Rep. 886

In the Matter of LAWRENCE SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Joel J. MORRIS, etc., et al., Respondents and Edwin Wegman, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Nov. 19, 1990.

D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Joseph F. Carlino, Mineola (Jack L. Libert, Peter R. Mineo and William A. DiConza, of counsel), for appellant.

Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Mineola (A. Thomas Levin, of counsel), for respondents.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and HARWOOD, MILLER and O'BRIEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Hewlett Bay Park, dated December 3, 1988, which revoked a building permit previously granted to the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated April 5, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the resettled judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondents.

As a general rule, a court is constrained to decide cases on the law as it exists at the time of the decision (see, Matter of Temkin v. Karagheuzoff, 34 N.Y.2d 324, 329, 357 N.Y.S.2d 470, 313 N.E.2d 770; Matter of Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Centre, 99 A.D.2d 754, 471 N.Y.S.2d 669, aff'd 64 N.Y.2d 921, 488 N.Y.S.2d 629, 477 N.E.2d 1083). The Supreme Court correctly considered a zoning amendment adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Hewlett Bay Park (hereinafter the Village) prior to the entry of judgment. The amendment prohibits the alteration, expansion, or enlargement of preexisting nonconforming uses, thereby negating the petitioner's right to build two swimming pools on its premises.

Municipalities have been estopped from applying zoning amendments to property owners only in those instances where vested rights have been acquired or where some form of misconduct or extraordinary delay on the part of the municipality has prevented the acquisition of such rights (see, Cymbidium Dev. Corp. v. Smith, 133 A.D.2d 605, 606, 519 N.Y.S.2d 711; Matter of Faymor Dev. Co. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.Y., 45 N.Y.2d 560, 410 N.Y.S.2d 798, 383 N.E.2d 100). The petitioner acknowledges that it did not acquire vested rights to build two swimming pools on its premises. Rather the petitioner contends that the Village's...