Mardine Realty Co. v. Village of Dobbs Ferry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mardine Realty Co. v. Village of Dobbs Ferry

1 A.D.2d 789, 148 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6519

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 789 (Mardine Realty Co. v. Village of Dobbs Ferry) 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

Mardine Realty Co. v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, 1 A.D.2d 789, 148 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to declare a zoning ordinance unconstitutional, insofar as it limits the structures which may be erected on respondents’ property to detached single family houses and excludes the erection of garden type apartments, and for injunctive relief, the appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondents, after trial Judgment modified on the law and the facts by deleting therefrom the second ordering paragraph, which grants injunctive relief against any application in any court based upon the use of the premises for garden type .apartment houses. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. In our opinion, on the record presented, the determination by the Special Term that the ordinance restricts respondents’ property to a use for which it is not adapted, and all other findings contained in the Special Term’s decision, are supported by substantial evidence. In our opinion, howevér, the injunctive provisions of the judgment are inappropriate. Appellants should not be denied the right to apply to the courts for relief with respect to any future dispute which may arise between the parties, concerning the use of the subject property. (Cf. Town of Somers v. Camarco, 284 App. Div. 979, affd. 308 N. Y. 537.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

In an action to declare a zoning ordinance unconstitutional, insofar as it limits the structures which may be erected on respondents’ property to detached single family houses and excludes the erection of garden type apartments, and for injunctive relief, the appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondents, after trial Judgment modified on the law and the facts by deleting therefrom the second ordering paragraph, which grants injunctive relief against any application in any court based upon the use of the premises for garden type .apartment houses. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. In our opinion, on the record presented, the determination by the Special Term that the ordinance restricts respondents’ property to a use for which it is not adapted, and all other findings contained in the Special Term’s decision, are supported by substantial evidence. In our opinion, howevér, the injunctive provisions of the judgment are inappropriate. Appellants should not be denied the right to apply to the courts for relief with respect to any future dispute which may arise between the parties, concerning the use of the subject property. (Cf. Town of Somers v. Camarco, 284 App. Div. 979, affd. 308 N. Y. 537.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 789, 148 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mardine-realty-co-v-village-of-dobbs-ferry-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack