Burack v. Sedore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burack v. Sedore

103 A.D.2d 817, 478 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19449

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

DecidedJuly 23, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.2d 817 (Burack v. Sedore) 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

Burack v. Sedore, 103 A.D.2d 817, 478 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a declaratory judgment that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Poughkeepsie is unconstitutional as applied to their property, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess [818]*818County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered January 4, 1983, which dismissed their complaint. 11 Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance, as applied to plaintiffs’ property, is valid and constitutional. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 11 The Supreme Court correctly held that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of proving that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Poughkeepsie is discriminatory or confiscatory. They failed to show bona fide efforts to use, sell or lease the property profitably for one of the many uses, other than public or quasi-public uses, permitted by the ordinance either as of right, or with a special use permit (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 504-505; Matter of Grimpel Assoc. v Cohalan, 41 NY2d 431, 433; Dodge Mill Land Corp. v Town of Amherst, 61 AD2d 216, 221). 11 Since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, the court should have declared that the ordinance, as applied to plaintiffs’ property, is valid and constitutional (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, app dsmd 371 US 74). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Weinstein and Niehoff, 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 that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Poughkeepsie is unconstitutional as applied to their property, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess [818]*818County (Rosenblatt, J.), entered January 4, 1983, which dismissed their complaint. 11 Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance, as applied to plaintiffs’ property, is valid and constitutional. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. 11 The Supreme Court correctly held that plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden of proving that the zoning ordinance of the Town of Poughkeepsie is discriminatory or confiscatory. They failed to show bona fide efforts to use, sell or lease the property profitably for one of the many uses, other than public or quasi-public uses, permitted by the ordinance either as of right, or with a special use permit (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 504-505; Matter of Grimpel Assoc. v Cohalan, 41 NY2d 431, 433; Dodge Mill Land Corp. v Town of Amherst, 61 AD2d 216, 221). 11 Since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, the court should have declared that the ordinance, as applied to plaintiffs’ property, is valid and constitutional (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, app dsmd 371 US 74). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 817, 478 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burack-v-sedore-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack