Socha v. Smith

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: All concur except FULD
• Citation: Socha v. Smith, 311 N.Y.S.2d 306, 26 N.Y.2d 1005, 259 N.E.2d 738 (N.Y. 1970)
• Decision Date: 23 April 1970
• Parties: , 259 N.E.2d 738 Walter J. SOCHA, Respondent, v. Gilbert E. SMITH et al., Appellants.

Page 306

311 N.Y.S.2d 306

26 N.Y.2d 1005, 259 N.E.2d 738

Walter J. SOCHA, Respondent, v. Gilbert E. SMITH et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 23, 1970.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 33 A.D.2d 835, 306 N.Y.S.2d 551.

Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, Schenectady, of counsel for respondents-appellants.

George R. Mills, Jr., Scotia, of record for respondents-appellants.

John L. Desmond, Scotia, for petitioner-respondent.

Landowner brought an Article 78 proceeding against members of Town Board to compel them to grant landowner's application for a zoning change from R--1--15 (single-family residences) to R--3 (multiple dwellings).

The Supreme Court, Schenectady County, rendered judgment for the landowner, and the members of the Town Board appealed.

The Appellate Division, Staley, J., affirmed the judgment and held that in absence of evidence that public health, safety, and welfare would be served by upholding ordinance zoning landowner's realty for single-family residence and in absence of evidence that a multiple-family use would affect adversely value of other premises in area, and in view of evidence showing that realty was unadaptable for single family residential use, landowner was entitled to succeed on his application for a zoning change. Herlihy, P.J., dissented. He was of the opinion that landowner had failed to overcome the presumption of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance and that the record affirmatively established the propriety of the zoning and that the action of members of the Town Board was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary.

The members of the Town Board appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that they were under no burden of proving that zoning ordinance was reasonably related...