Onasor Construction Corp. v. D'Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Onasor Construction Corp. v. D'Amato

87 A.D.2d 838, 450 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16308

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

DecidedApril 12, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 838 (Onasor Construction Corp. v. D'Amato) 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

Onasor Construction Corp. v. D'Amato, 87 A.D.2d 838, 450 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Young, J.), dated June 16, 1981, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance of the Town of Hempstead classifying plaintiff’s property in the “Levittown Planned Residence District”, and restricting development to single-family detached dwellings was not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff’s property. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. After a nonjury trial, the court determined that the ordinance as applied to plaintiff’s property was constitutional. We agree and have modified the judgment to reflect this conclusion. (See Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, app dsmd 371 US 74.) Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Young, J.), dated June 16, 1981, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance of the Town of Hempstead classifying plaintiff’s property in the “Levittown Planned Residence District”, and restricting development to single-family detached dwellings was not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff’s property. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. After a nonjury trial, the court determined that the ordinance as applied to plaintiff’s property was constitutional. We agree and have modified the judgment to reflect this conclusion. (See Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, app dsmd 371 US 74.) Weinstein, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 838, 450 N.Y.S.2d 753, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onasor-construction-corp-v-damato-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack