Turner v. Mun. Code Violations Bureau of Rochester

• Decision Date: 21 November 2014
• Docket Number: 1090 CA 14-00572
• Citation: 997 N.Y.S.2d 876,122 A.D.3d 1376,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08156
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas C. TURNER and Kingsley Stanard, Petitioners–Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS BUREAU OF CITY OF ROCHESTER and City of Rochester, Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

122 A.D.3d 1376
997 N.Y.S.2d 876
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08156

In the Matter of Thomas C. TURNER and Kingsley Stanard, Petitioners–Plaintiffs–Appellants
v.
MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS BUREAU OF CITY OF ROCHESTER and City of Rochester, Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.

1090 CA 14-00572

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 21, 2014.

997 N.Y.S.2d 876

Santiago Burger Annechino LLP, Rochester (Michael A. Burger of Counsel), for Petitioners–Plaintiffs–Appellants.

T. Andrew Brown, Corporation Counsel, Rochester (Sara L. Valencia of Counsel), for Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

122 A.D.3d 1377

Petitioners-plaintiffs (plaintiffs) commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking, inter alia, to declare section 120–175 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rochester (Code) unconstitutional. Supreme

997 N.Y.S.2d 877

Court denied the relief sought in the petition-complaint.

The ordinance at issue was enacted by the Rochester City Council to advance the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Rochester (see Code § 120–162). To that end, the ordinance seeks to prohibit “outdoor storage” in all districts except specifically enumerated commercial districts (id. § 120–175). The Code defines “outdoor storage” as “[s]torage of any materials, merchandise, stock, supplies, machines and the like that are not kept in a structure having at least four walls and a roof, regardless of how long such materials are kept on the premises” (id. § 120–208).

Plaintiffs contend that Code § 120–175 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and we agree. We therefore reverse the judgment and declare section 120–175 of the Code to be unconstitutional. Municipal ordinances, like other legislative enactments, “enjoy an ‘exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality’ ” (Cimato Bros. v. Town of Pendleton, 270 A.D.2d 879, 879, 705 N.Y.S.2d 468, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 757, 713 N.Y.S.2d 1, 734 N.E.2d 1212, quoting Lighthouse Shores v. Town of Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7, 11, 390 N.Y.S.2d 827, 359 N.E.2d 337 ). The void-for-vagueness doctrine “embodies a ‘rough idea of fairness' ” (Quintard Assoc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 57 A.D.2d 462, 465, 394 N.Y.S.2d 960, lv. denied 42 N.Y.2d 805, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 367 N.E.2d 659, appeal dismissed 42 N.Y.2d...