Bueti v. Town of Bedford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bueti v. Town of Bedford

42 A.D.2d 902, 347 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8300

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 17, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 902 (Bueti v. Town of Bedford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bueti v. Town of Bedford, 42 A.D.2d 902, 347 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 17, 1972, which dismissed the complaint after a non jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs to defendant, and judgment granted to defendant declaring that its zoning ordinance is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, confiscatory, unconstitutional or void and ineffective as it applies to plaintiff’s property. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, the complaint should not have been dismissed (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334; Rockland Light é Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 IT. Y. 45). We agree, however, with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Special Term and therefore judgment must be entered in favor of defendant upholding the validity of its zoning ordinance. (See, also, Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay, 32 IT Y 2d 78.) Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 17, 1972, which dismissed the complaint after a non jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs to defendant, and judgment granted to defendant declaring that its zoning ordinance is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, confiscatory, unconstitutional or void and ineffective as it applies to plaintiff’s property. The findings of fact below are affirmed. Since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, the complaint should not have been dismissed (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334; Rockland Light é Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 IT. Y. 45). We agree, however, with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Special Term and therefore judgment must be entered in favor of defendant upholding the validity of its zoning ordinance. (See, also, Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay, 32 IT Y 2d 78.) Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 902, 347 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bueti-v-town-of-bedford-nyappdiv-1973.