Village of Harriman v. Kabinoff
| Decision Date | 25 September 1963 |
| Citation | 243 N.Y.S.2d 210,40 Misc.2d 387 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF HARRIMAN, Plaintiff, v. Herman KABINOFF and Arthur Kabinoff, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Abraham J. Weissman, Middletown, for plaintiff.
Fabricant & Lipman, Monroe, for defendants.
In 1954 plaintiff Village adopted an ordinance which, in part, provides:
The defendant Herman Kabinoff is the owner and his cousin Arthur Kabinoff is alleged to be the lessee or licensee of premises in the Village known as Brenner Park developed as a site for 'mobile homes' according to the defendants, as a park or development for 'automobile trailers' according to the Village. Denials by the defendants that Arthur Kabinoff is the lessee or licensee are unimportant. The Village, alleging that no permits have been applied for or issued pursuant to the ordinance for the maintenance of these 'automobile trailers' or 'mobile homes' upon defendant Herman Kabinoff's premises, brings this action to enjoin their continued maintenance without application for and issuance of a permit. The Village has moved for a temporary injunction and the defendants have cross moved for summary judgment. Upon the return of the order to show cause for the temporary injunction, the parties agreed to the entry of an order prohibiting the defendants from bringing in or permitting any additional 'house trailers' or 'mobile homes' upon the premises, or making any preparations or site improvements for them pending a decision herein.
The Village in addition to claiming a violation of this ordinance, claims that defendants have failed to provide properly for water, sewage and other sanitary facilities and that defendants' continued operation of the development is violative of the ordinance and dangerous and detrimental to the occupants of the development and the residents of the Village.
The defendants deny that the premises are unsanitary, dangerous or detrimental. This issue need not be disposed of since the plaintiff need not establish these conditions to prevail in the action. They do not deny that they neither applied for nor received permits. Their position rather is that the ordinance is unconstitutional, and that aside from the alleged invalidity of the ordinance, it proscribes automobile trailers without permits whereas the defendants maintain or accommodate mobile homes which are not subject to the ordinance.
Defendants attack the constitutionality of the ordinance upon two grounds: one, that the plaintiff was without authority to adopt such an ordinance and two, that the ordinance is void, by reason of its failure to fix standards to govern the village board of trustees.
With respect to the first ground, defendants argue that subdivision 69 of section 89 of the Village Law which provides for the regulation of house trailer camps, tourist camps and house trailers was enacted by the Legislature in 1955 subsequent to the enactment of plaintiff's ordinance. Defendants urge that plaintiff had no power to enact such an ordinance in 1954. This argument is untenable. Subdivision 59 of section 89 of the Village Law existed prior to the enactment of the ordinance in question and permits a village to enact ordinances for the promotion of public welfare. The regulation of trailer camps bears a substantial relation to the public welfare and is a valid exercise of the police power under this section (Matter of Stevens v. Smolka, 11 A.D.2d 896, 897, 202 N.Y.S.2d 783, 784).
The ordinance in question fixes no standards which must govern the determination of the board of trustees as to whether it shall or shall not issue a permit. The regulation of trailer camps, relating to the public welfare, is an exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lassiter v. Bliss
...v. Gabriel, 155 Mont. 294, 470 P.2d 528 (1970); Van Poole v. Messer, 19 N.C.App. 70, 198 S.W.2d 106 (1973); cf. Village of Harriman v. Kabinoff, 243 N.Y.S.2d 210 (Sup.Ct.1963); Astoria v. Notwang, 221 Or. 452, 351 P.2d 688 Bliss relies on Crawford v. Boyd, 453 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort ......
-
Melton v. City of San Pablo
...legislative function relating to the public welfare, not requiring the formulation of general standards (Village of Harriman v. Kabinoff, 40 Misc.2d 387, 243 N.Y.S.2d 210, 213). The general standards to be considered by the City Planning Commission before recommending the approval of a land......
-
Van Poole v. Messer, 7319SC449
...authority we have found dealing with that issue. See Timmerman v. Gabriel, 155 Mont. 294, 470 P.2d 528 (1970); Harriman v. Kabinoff, 40 Misc.2d 387, 243 N.Y.S.2d 210 (1963). In Annot. 96 A.L.R.2d 232 (1964), at page 234, it is stated that '(t)he term 'trailer' is understood in its usual mea......
-
Albany Discount Corp. v. Mohawk Nat. Bank of Schenectady
...forms of house trailers has been noted, see Mobile Home Owners v. Chatham, 33 A.D.2d 78, 305 N.Y.S.2d 334; Village of Harriman v. Kabinoff, 40 Misc.2d 387, 243 N.Y.S.2d 210; Morin v. Zoning Bd., 102 R.I. 457, 232 A.2d 393; City of Rutland v. Keiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 205 A.2d 400, all involving......