McGowan v. Cohalan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGowan v. Cohalan

51 A.D.2d 972, 380 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 972 (McGowan v. Cohalan) 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

McGowan v. Cohalan, 51 A.D.2d 972, 380 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 27, 1975, after a nonjury trial, which, inter alia, declared a certain zoning ordinance unconstitutional in its application to plaintiff’s property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and action remanded to Special Term for entry of a judgment declaring the subject ordinance constitutional as applied to the property in question, and otherwise dismissing the complaint. In our opinion, plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the application of the ordinance to the subject premises is arbitrary and unreasonable (see Dauernheim, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead, 33 NY2d 468; Williams v Town of Oyster Bay, 32 NY2d 78). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 27, 1975, after a nonjury trial, which, inter alia, declared a certain zoning ordinance unconstitutional in its application to plaintiff’s property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and action remanded to Special Term for entry of a judgment declaring the subject ordinance constitutional as applied to the property in question, and otherwise dismissing the complaint. In our opinion, plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the application of the ordinance to the subject premises is arbitrary and unreasonable (see Dauernheim, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead, 33 NY2d 468; Williams v Town of Oyster Bay, 32 NY2d 78). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Christ and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 972, 380 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-cohalan-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack