Rowe Street Associates, Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay
| Decision Date | 10 December 1970 |
| Citation | 27 N.Y.2d 973,318 N.Y.S.2d 502 |
| Parties | , 267 N.E.2d 277 ROWE STREET ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 34 A.D.2d 987, 313 N.Y.S.2d 94.
Russ, Weyl & Levitt, Massapequa, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bernard F. McCaffrey, Oyster Bay (Attilio G. Marangione, Oyster Bay, of counsel), for respondent.
Landowner brought action against town for judgment declaring that building zone ordinance of town is unconstitutional insofar as it affects landowner's parcel of realty.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County, Manuel W. Levine, J., 63 Misc.2d 46, 310 N.Y.S.2d 138, rendered judgment in favor of the town and held that where landowner acquired 10,000-foot parcel of land, knowing of ordinance requriring plot area of 7,000 square feet, and parcel was located in area in which 55% Of homes were on plots larger than 7,000 feet, and 40% Of plots were 10,000 square feet or more, application of ordinance to landowner's parcel, so as to preclude landowner from splitting parcel into two substandard plots, was constitutional.
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and held that where landowner acquired 10,000 square foot parcel some 16 years after enactment of zoning ordinance requiring 7,000 square foot minimum lot size, only a small percentage of houses in neighborhood were on sub-standard lots, and it was shown that variance to divide plottage area into two 5,000-foot plots, as desired by landowner, would undermine neighborhood, application of ordinance to plot was not unconstitutional.
The landowner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany
...the ordinance (Id., at pp. 34--35, 286 N.Y.S.2d at pp. 252--254, 233 N.E.2d at pp. 274--275; see Rowe St. Assoc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 27 N.Y.2d 973, 318 N.Y.S.2d 502, 267 N.E.2d 277). It is only when such a showing is made by the public authorities, that the property owner, in order to be......
-
National Merritt, Inc. v. Weist
...N.E.2d pp. 274, 275; see, also, Rowe St. Assoc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 34 A.D.2d 987, 988, 313 N.Y.S.2d 94, 96, aff'd 27 N.Y.2d 973, 318 N.Y.S.2d 502, 267 N.E.2d 277). Once proof of significant economic injury is adduced the burden of going forward with proof that the restriction is reasona......
-
Marcus Associates, Inc. v. Town of Huntington
...v. Town of Oyster Bay, 63 Misc.2d 46, 48, 310 N.Y.S.2d 138, 140 affd. 34 A.D.2d 987, 988, 313 N.Y.S.2d 94, 96, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 973, 318 N.Y.S.2d 502, 267 N.E.2d 277). It matters not that the character of the area is industrial rather than residential, for surely that consideration alone doe......
-
Mitchell v. Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Yonkers
...Rowe St. Assoc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 63 Misc.2d 46, 310 N.Y.S.2d 138, affd. 34 A.D.2d 987, 313 N.Y.S.2d 94, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 973, 318 N.Y.S.2d 502, 267 N.E.2d 277). As to the second standard, it is plain from the record that the division of Burckel's property into three lots will cause no ......