Empire City Racing Ass'n v. City of Yonkers

132 Misc. 816, 230 N.Y.S. 457, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1008
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 31, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 132 Misc. 816 (Empire City Racing Ass'n v. City of Yonkers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Empire City Racing Ass'n v. City of Yonkers, 132 Misc. 816, 230 N.Y.S. 457, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1008 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Opinion

Bleakley, J.

The Empire City Racing Association is the owner of the premises in question, and has conducted and maintained thereon for twenty-eight years a race track where race meets are held twice a year. In November, 1927, three barns belonging to the petitioner were destroyed by fire, and the petitioner applied to the building inspector for a permit to erect two new barns in place thereof, not upon the same location, but within the boundary of the premises used as the track.

The application was first granted and, when work had proceeded to a considerable extent, the application was revoked. Petitioner seeks an order of mandamus to compel the issuance of the permit. The permit was revoked upon the ground that, apart from the frontage upon Central avenue and Yonkers avenue, the property has been placed in a residential zone and the erection of barns prohibited.

In view of the fact that at the time of the passage of the ordinance these premises were used as a race track, and the use has not been abandoned, the petitioner could not be denied the right of erecting on the premises buildings designed and used for the conduct of the business. If this property ceases to be used for race track purposes, it is in a residential zone, and none but residences may be erected thereon, but, until its present use is abandoned, buildings of the character in question may be erected within the confines of the property used for track purposes.

It follows that the order should be granted.

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

Related

United Citizens v. Zoning Board of Appeals
109 Misc. 2d 1080 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
City of Las Cruces v. Neff
338 P.2d 731 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1959)
MATTER OF CROSSROADS RECREATION v. Broz
149 N.E.2d 65 (New York Court of Appeals, 1958)
Kovelman v. Plaut
201 Misc. 473 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
Brous v. Town of Hempstead
272 A.D.2d 31 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1947)
Austin v. Older
278 N.W. 727 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Eaton v. Sweeny
232 A.D. 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 Misc. 816, 230 N.Y.S. 457, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-city-racing-assn-v-city-of-yonkers-nysupct-1928.