Old Farm Road, Inc. v. Town of New Castle
| Decision Date | 14 May 1970 |
| Citation | 259 N.E.2d 920,26 N.Y.2d 462,311 N.Y.S.2d 500 |
| Parties | , 259 N.E.2d 920 OLD FARM ROAD, INC., Appellant, v. TOWN OF NEW CASTLE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Burton H. Zuckerman, New York City, for appellant.
Arthur F. Gaynor, and Daniel G. Donovan, White Plains, for respondents.
The issue is the constitutionality of certain parts of the Town of New Castle's zoning ordinance. The provisions challenged create a Board of Architectural Review and require that each application for a permit to construct a new building, or to make alterations or additions of specified nature and cost, shall be submitted to the board. Authority is conferred upon the board to disapprove any such application upon finding that the structure 'would, if erected or altered be so detrimental to the desirability, property values or development of the surrounding areas as to provide one or more of the harmful effects set forth in Section 1 (of the ordinance) by reason of * * * excessive similarity * * * excessive dissimilarity * * * or * * * inappropriateness in relation to the established character of other structures in the immediate area or neighboring areas'.
Without first applying for a permit, plaintiff brought this action for declaratory judgment. The amended complaint, after averring plaintiff's ownership of realty in the town, alleges that the ordinance provides no standards for the guidance of the board, exceeds the permissible bounds of the police power and is too vague and ambiguous to be enforced. For the obvious purpose of showing present damage and invasion of right, the amended complaint sets forth the conclusory allegations that the ordinance 'is confiscatory in that (it) would seriously impair or entirely destroy the value of plaintiff's property, is invalid and is in excess of the authority of the Town.'
In granting defendants' motion to dismiss, Special Term gave effect to defendants' argument that the plaintiff's failure to apply for a building permit rendered its constitutional attack premature, the court defining the 'basic issue (as) one of standing in the constitutional sense to raise the question involved'; holding that '(i)f a statute is fairly susceptible of a constitutional construction and able to be administered in a fashion that would prevent an unconstitutional confiscation, then the administrative relief provided shall first be resorted to so that it can be determined if any injury has occurred'; and concluding that 'the plaintiff has failed to show any of the unusual circumstances that might render the administrative remedy inadequate.'
The Appellate Division, affirming, agreed that 'the causes of action alleged in the amended complaint * * * are asserted prematurely where, as here, no application has been made for a building permit.' (28 A.D.2d 570, 282 N.Y.S.2d 449.)
We conclude that the plaintiff should, indeed, be confined to its administrative remedy, in the first instance. Aesthetic considerations are not unlawful per se (People v. Stover, 12 N.Y.2d 462, 240 N.Y.S.2d 734, 191 N.E.2d 272, app. dismd. 375 U.S. 42, 84 S.Ct. 147, 11 L.Ed.2d 107); and unless and until a building permit for a specific structure shall have been denied, even the existence of any present damage cannot be demonstrated, so nebulous is plaintiff's claim thereof as it appears in the allegations of the amended complaint hereinbefore quoted. Additionally, in this particularly difficult area of regulation, a decision rendered prior to the denial of a building permit would have to be reached in a vacuum and without such help as we might obtain from knowledge of the board's practical construction of the ordinance and of the standards actually applied.
The parties dispute the meaning and effect of our decision in Levitt v. Incorporated Vil. of Sands Point, 6 N.Y.2d 269, 189 N.Y.S.2d 212, 160 N.E.2d 501; and, initially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. Hulse
...may not be raised until such time as they have exhausted their administrative remedies (see Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 464, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 501, 259 N.E.2d 920; Janas v. Town Bd. of Town of Fleming, 51 A.D.2d 473, 382 N.Y.S.2d 394; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law ......
-
Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo
...attack was premature because of the asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies (cf. Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 259 N.E.2d 920), denied their motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appell......
-
Town of Islip v. Zalak
...N.Y.S.2d 843, 423 N.E.2d 320, revd. on other grounds 458 US 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868; Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 465, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 259 N.E.2d 920; Radano v. Town of Huntington, 305 N.Y. 911, 114 N.E.2d 470; Dur-Bar Realty Co. v. City of Utica, 57 A.D......
-
Cohalan v. Schermerhorn
...325, 206 N.Y.S.2d 773, 170 N.E.2d 198) for such a change constitutes an exercise of legislative power (Old Farm Road v. Town of New Castle, 26 N.Y.2d 462, 311 N.Y.S.2d 500, 259 N.E.2d 920; Levy v. Board of Standards and Appeals, 267 N.Y. 347, 196 N.E. 284; Reed v. Board of Standards & Appea......