Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

70 Misc. 2d 187, 333 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1855

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 30, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 Misc. 2d 187 (Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp.) 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

Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 70 Misc. 2d 187, 333 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1855 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Samuel J. Silverman, J.

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted to the extent of awarding judgment declaring that subdivision (3) of section 16 of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (L. 1968, eh. 174) is valid and constitutional insofar as it purports to exempt projects of the Urban Development Corp. from zoning laws and regulations and other local laws and regulations of cities, towns and villages of the State, and in particular of the Village of Ossining, (a) The act deals with matters of State concern and is thus not in violation of the home rule provisions of the State Constitution (Adler v. Deegan, 251 N. Y. 467; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]); (b) the act relates to matters exempted from the grant of zoning authority to municipalities under subdivision 4 of section 11 of the Statute of Local Governments (L. 1964, ch. 205; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]; art. XVIII, § 1); (c) State instrumentalities are inherently exempt from local zoning regulations.

Settle declaratory judgment with provision for severance as to all issues not covered by the foregoing decision.

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

Samuel J. Silverman, J.

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted to the extent of awarding judgment declaring that subdivision (3) of section 16 of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (L. 1968, eh. 174) is valid and constitutional insofar as it purports to exempt projects of the Urban Development Corp. from zoning laws and regulations and other local laws and regulations of cities, towns and villages of the State, and in particular of the Village of Ossining, (a) The act deals with matters of State concern and is thus not in violation of the home rule provisions of the State Constitution (Adler v. Deegan, 251 N. Y. 467; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]); (b) the act relates to matters exempted from the grant of zoning authority to municipalities under subdivision 4 of section 11 of the Statute of Local Governments (L. 1964, ch. 205; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]; art. XVIII, § 1); (c) State instrumentalities are inherently exempt from local zoning regulations.

Settle declaratory judgment with provision for severance as to all issues not covered by the foregoing decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Misc. 2d 187, 333 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-new-york-state-urban-development-corp-nysupct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack