People v. Clute
| Decision Date | 26 October 1965 |
| Citation | 47 Misc.2d 1005,263 N.Y.S.2d 826 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Beatrice CLUTE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
John S. Hall, Warrensburg, for appellant.
Francis W. DeCamilla, Town Atty. Town of Kingsbury, Hudson Falls, for respondent Town of Kingsbury.
George S. Morse, Dist. Atty. of Washington County, for the People.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of a Justice's Court (Harold R. Moore, Jr., J. P.) of the Town of Kingsbury, convicting defendant, on the verdict of a jury, of a violation of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Kingsbury.
Defendant is the owner of certain premises on Yole Drive in the Town of Kingsbury located in an R-15 Residential District. Under section 62 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance permitted uses in an R-15 Residential District are:
'a. One single-family dwelling per lot with such accessory buildings as may be associated with residential use b. Gardening pursuits for the benefit of the resident family.
c. Customary farming operations on land which is part of a farm included within the boundaries of the district.
d. Churches with associated activities.
e. Public schools and public buildings.
f. Public parks together with buildings and uses incidental to their operation.
g. Customary home occupations such as the practice of the professions, giving private instructions and dressmaking.'
Section 81 of the ordinance provides that:
Section 41 of the Ordinance provides that a construction permit 'shall be required for placing a trailer for residential purposes in any area outside an authorized trailer park.'
Section 47 of the Ordinance provides that any person aggrieved by a decision made under the Ordinance 'may present an appeal for redress to the Board of Appeals.'
Subdivision i of section 61 of the Ordinance provides:
Subdivision j provides
The information signed by the Zoning Administrator of the Town of Kingsbury alleged that defendant violated section 62 of the Ordinance on June 26, 1964 by 'wrongfully, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly placing a mobile home or trailer on said premises' an act forbidden by the ordinance.
It appears that on June 23, 1964, defendant filed an application for a permit for temporary construction on her property, the explanation being: . The Zoning Administrator refused the permit. She testified that she had no choice because a trailer could only be placed in a trailer court or on a farm under the Ordinance and defendant's land was in an R-15 Residential District. Defendant made no attempt to appeal to the Board of Appeals which alone had power to redress any action taken under the Ordinance.
The testimony amply shows that on June 25, 1964, a trailer on wheels was driven onto defendant's land and thereafter the wheels were either hidden from view or removed when the entire trailer was placed on a foundation.
Such conduct constitutes a clear violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In people v. Lederle, 206 Misc. 244, 132 N.Y.S.2d 693, affd. 309 N.Y. 866, 131 N.E.2d 284 and People v. Dennis, 206 Misc. 402, 133 N.Y.S.2d 586, the facts of which are virtually identical with those in this appeal, convictions were upheld, and must here also be upheld.
Defendant contends that the People failed to prove defendant's guilt because no one testified that defendant had anything to do with actually placing the trailer on the property. Such contention is specious. The land on which the trailer was placed is defendant's. It was in her control and if the trailer somehow was placed thereon, the act of placing it is that of defendant.
Defendant contends that the Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional. Defendant, not having appealed to the Board of Appeals, cannot make such contention on this appeal. As the court said in People v. Calver Corp. (286 N.Y. 419, 36 N.E.2d 644):
'Perhaps there has already been application and denial in this case, but that does not appear from the record and the appellants are not asking here a review of any determination by the Board of Appeals denying such application.'
Assuming that the contention that the Ordinance is unconstitutional may be maintained, defendant argues that the Ordinance does not attempt to regulate trailers but to prohibit them. A reading of the Ordinance shows that they can be maintained in trailer parks and in Agricultural Districts. That is not prohibition but regulation. The distinction between the districts in which they may be maintained and those in which they may not be maintained is reasonable and bears a distinct relationship to the public health and welfare. In fact, section 101 of the Ordinance provides that: 'In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, morals, safety, and general welfare.'
In view of sewage, water supply, waste disposal and other problems connected with the maintenance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson Tp. v. Knoll
...State ex rel. Wilkerson v. Murray, 471 S.W.2d 460 (Mo., 1971); Napierkowski v. Gloucester Twp., supra (New Jersey); People v. Clute, 47 Misc.2d 1005, 263 N.Y.S.2d 826 (1965), aff'd 18 N.Y.2d 999, 278 N.Y.S.2d 231, 224 N.E.2d 734 (1966); Duckworth v. Bonney Lake, supra (Washington); Town of ......
-
City of Brookside Village v. Comeau
...U.S. 851, 92 S.Ct. 87, 30 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971); Napierkowski v. Gloucester Tp., 29 N.J. 481, 150 A.2d 481 (1959); People v. Clute, 47 Misc.2d 1005, 263 N.Y.S.2d 826 (Co.Ct.1965), aff'd, 18 N.Y.2d 999, 278 N.Y.S.2d 231, 224 N.E.2d 734 (1966). In addition to health and safety hazards, the consid......
-
Mobile Home City of Chattanooga v. Hamilton County.
...these public services can be strictly supervised indeed bears a relationship to the public health and welfare. People v. Clute, 47 Misc.2d 1005, 263 N.Y.S.2d 826, 830 (1965). Other jurisdictions which have dealt with this question have generally upheld zoning ordinances banning trailer home......
-
Servatius v. Town of Verona
...parks or areas is generally considered to be a reasonable regulation and not an unconstitutional prohibition. People v. Clute, 47 Misc.2d 1005, 263 N.Y.S.2d 826, aff'd. 18 N.Y.2d 999, 278 N.Y.S.2d 231, 224 N.E.2d Under Section 261 of the Town Law, a town may regulate such things as the qual......