 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Berenson
v. Town of New Castle
A landowner attacked as exclusionary a suburban town’s zoning law
that contained no provision for the development of multi-family housing
in any zoning district in the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found
the Town’s law to be exclusionary, stating that “[t]he primary
goal of a zoning law must be to provide for the development of a balanced,
cohesive community which will make efficient use of the town’s available
land.” To
read more click here
Triglia
v. Town of Cortlandt
A developer challenged the Town’s zoning law as exclusionary. In
1993, the town amended its zoning law to eliminate all multi-family housing
as-of-right in the community. The plaintiff had applied to build 120 two-story
multi-family units, 10 of which would be affordable to lower income families.
The Town Board had approved this proposal, but after the 1993 amendments,
it refused to take any further action regarding the plaintiff’s application.
To
read more click here
Kamhi
v. Planning Board of the Town of Yorktown
The Court of Appeals ruled that a planning board may not impose a condition
on clustered subdivision approval that compels a developer to convey title
of a portion of the land to the municipality for its use as a park, without
compensation.
To
read more click here
Baywater
Realty & Capitol Corp.v. Planning
Board of the Town of Lewisboro
The court held that a planning board is authorized to require
developers to set aside land or money for recreational purposes in addition
to the open space already created by the clustering process.
To
read more click here
Anglebrook
v. City of New York
On Friday, April 13, 1995 the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, by the Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., District
Judge, rendered a 43 page decision dismissing in all respects a lawsuit
by the City of New York against Anglebrook Limited Partnership in which
the City sought to prevent Anglebrook from constructing a golf course
on a 240 acre site which it owns in the Town of Somers, New York.
To
read more click here
Continental
Building Co. v. Town of North Salem
On Thursday, April 27, 1995, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third
Judicial Department, upheld the invalidation of the Town of North Salem’s
Zoning Ordinance in Continental Building Company, Inc. v. The Town of
North Salem, finding the ordinance unconstitutionally excluded affordable
and multi-family housing.To
read more click here
Twin
Lake Farms Associates v. Town of Bedford
A state appellate court has furthered a developer’s
plans to build 17 homes off Twin Lakes Road by granting preliminary approval
of the project, approval the Planning Board argued was not yet ready to
be given. The decision upheld a 1993 state Supreme Court judgment which
said that Twin Lakes Farms Associates, owners of the land, should rightfully
receive preliminary approval of the project due to failure by the planning
board to rule on their proposal within the 45 day period which is allotted
for such actions. To
read more click here
Douglaston
Manor, Inc. v. Bahrakis, 89
N.Y.2d 472, 655 N.Y.S.2d 745 (1997).
The firm
prepared an amicus curiae brief in the Court of Appeals in support of
the prevailing property owner in which the Court reversed the Appellate
Division, Fourth Department, and established a property owner's exclusive
recreational rights, including fishing rights, in a navigable river that
flowed through his property.
Adirondack
League Club, Inc. v. Sierra Club et al., 92
N.Y.2d 591, 684 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1998).
In this landmark decision, the Court of Appeals modified
the judgment of Supreme Court and order of the Appellate Division, Third
Department and held that the legal standard for determining the navigability-in-fact
of inland freshwater rivers is the traditional commercial test of practical
utility for trade or travel, rejecting the attempts of recreational activists
to convince the Court to adopt a “recreational utility” test
which would have opened virtually all such waterbodies to the public for
recreational purposes.
Bonnie
Briar Syndicate, Inc. v. Town of Mamaroneck, 94
N.Y.2d 96, 699 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1999) cert. denied 529 U.S. 1094 (2000).
The
Court of Appeals effectively limited United States Supreme Court takings
jurisprudence and upheld the rezoning of the owner's golf course property
for open space purposes because the owner was not denied substantially
all beneficial use of its property and the open space zoning substantially
advanced the legitimate state interest of protecting open space, enhancing
flood control and preserving recreational opportunities
Briarcliff
Associates v. Town of Cortlandt, 272 A.D.2d 488, 708 N.Y.S.2d
421 (2d Dep’t 2000), app. dism’d, 95 N.Y.2d 886 (2000) appeal
denied, 96 N.Y.2d 704 (2001).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the largest reported
constitutional takings award to the property owner and held that the owner
did not have a compensable takings claim due to the municipality having
rezoned its property to prohibit mining thereon.
Town
of Bedford v. Peltz, 283 A.D.2d 568, 727 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2d Dep’t
2001)
The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the Supreme Court’s
decision denying summary judgment to the Town based on the finding that
the property owner’s use of his residential property for helicopter
take-offs and landings differed from the prior owner’s recreational
airplane use and therefore the owner could not establish a legal continuation
of a pre-existing non-conforming use.
P.M.S.
Assets, Ltd. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of Pleasantville, 98
N.Y.2d 683, 746 N.Y.S.2d 440 (2002).
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, Second Department
and upheld a resolution of the Village Zoning Board of Appeals, holding
that the Board could rationally conclude that the owner was using the
existing warehouse on the property in a manner that was inconsistent with
and outside the scope of the prior nonconforming use.
Legion
of Christ, Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 1 N.Y.3d 406, 774
N.Y.S.2d 860 (2004).
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, Second Department,
and held that the Town and the court could not amend the Real Property
Tax Law to require a religious landowner to obtain a zoning special permit
as a condition precedent to qualifying for real property tax exemption
for its vacant land.
Abate
v. City of Yonkers, 10 A.D.3d 605, 781 N.Y.S.2d 667 (2d Dep’t
2004).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed Supreme Court's decision
upholding a challenge by neighboring municipalities to the environmental
and land use approvals for a major “big box” retail development
in the City of Yonkers, and dismissed the challenges.
LoRusso
v. Brookside Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc.,17 A.D.3d 323,
793 N.Y.S.2d 96 (2d Dep’t 2005) appeal dismissed, 5 N.Y.3d 783 (2005).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in a case of first impression,
applied the “business judgment” rule to the deliberations of
a homeowner’s association’s board of managers.
Town
of Mount Pleasant v. Legion of Christ, Inc., 2006 N.Y. Slip
Op. 0430, decided June 6, 2006. (7N.Y.3rd 122, 818N.Y.S. 2d 171)
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, Second Department,
and held that the Town could not interpret its zoning ordinance to permit
a commercial taxpaying property owner to use the property as a conference,
education and training center while denying the same use of the same property
to a tax-exempt religious and educational institution. The Court declined
to find municipal liability under the land use section of the federal
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Spears
v. Town of Cortlandt Planning Bd., 44 A.D.3d 866, 844 N.Y.S.2d
84 (2d Dep’t 2007).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Supreme Court's decision
denying a challenge by adjoining landowners by an Article 78 proceeding
to review resolution of the town planning board granting application for
preliminary subdivision approval, holding that the board’s interpretation
of its subdivision regulations was not unreasonable or irrational, and
that the board took requisite “hard look” pursuant to State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
