Hey v. Town Board of Potter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hey v. Town Board of Potter

117 A.D.2d 989, 499 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53227

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 989 (Hey v. Town Board of Potter) 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

Hey v. Town Board of Potter, 117 A.D.2d 989, 499 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The April 1982 vote of the Town Board was not sufficient to repeal the zoning ordinance. Town Law § 265 requires a three-fourths vote of the Town Board in order to repeal a zoning ordinance after protest has been registered, as it was here, by 20% of the affected property owners. Since the Board consists of five members, it was necessary to have four favorable votes in order to repeal the ordinance and thus the 3 to 1 vote, with one member abstaining, was insufficient for repeal. Thus viewed there is no need to address the other issues raised. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Yates County, Purple, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The April 1982 vote of the Town Board was not sufficient to repeal the zoning ordinance. Town Law § 265 requires a three-fourths vote of the Town Board in order to repeal a zoning ordinance after protest has been registered, as it was here, by 20% of the affected property owners. Since the Board consists of five members, it was necessary to have four favorable votes in order to repeal the ordinance and thus the 3 to 1 vote, with one member abstaining, was insufficient for repeal. Thus viewed there is no need to address the other issues raised. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Yates County, Purple, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 989, 499 N.Y.S.2d 290, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hey-v-town-board-of-potter-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack