Cannata v. City of New York

14 A.D.2d 813, 221 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8237

Opinion

In our opinion, condemnation is authorized, not only for slum clearance, but also to eliminate areas of “ intangible ” physical blight, i.e., areas which tend to create slums or which tend to impair or arrest the sound growth of the city. Such a purpose is public; redevelopment may properly be accomplished by private persons; and the area condemned may thereafter be properly used for nonresidential purposes (People ex rel. Adamowski v. Chicago Land Clearance Comm., 14 Ill. 2d 74; Wilson v. City of Long Branch, 27 N. J. 360, cert. denied 358 U. S. 873; Redevelopment Agency of City & County of San Francisco v. Hayes, 122 Cal. App. 2d 777, cert. denied 348 U. S. 897; Opinion of the Justices, 334 Mass. 760; Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26). The power thus exercised comes within the provisions of section 1 of article XVIII of the Constitution of the State of New York even though the area is not a slum with tangible physical blight (Diehm v. City of New York, 208 Misc. 209; Graham v. Houlihan, 147 Conn. 321, cert. denied 364 U. S. 833). In actions for declaratory judgment, the granting of a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings should not result in dismissal of the complaint, but in a declaration on the merits in favor of defendant (Rockland Light & Power Co. v. City of New York, 289 N. Y. 45; Strauss v. University of State of New York, 282 App. Div. 593). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. [24 Misc 2d 694.]