Palmer v. Furman

283 A.D. 664, 127 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4826
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 1954·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits in an action for a judgment declaring a zoning ordinance of the Town of Islip, as amended, to be unconstitutional and void as to plaintiffs’ property and for injunctive relief. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. The amendment to the ordinance, of which appellants complain, changed the zone wherein appellants’ unimproved property is located from a Residence B ” zone to a Residence “A” zone, more highly restricted as to area and related requirements. In our opinion the amendment was not arbitrary or unreasonable. (Cf. Bodgers v. Village of Tarrytovin, 302 N. Y. 115.) That there has resulted any depreciation in the value of appellants’ property is questionable, but in any event the pecuniary profits of the individual are secondary to the public welfare. (Shepard v. Village of Shaneateles, 300 N. Y. 115.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ.

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

Palmer v. Furman, 283 A.D. 664, 127 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

283 A.D. 664 (Palmer v. Furman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flax v. City of Rome
57 Misc. 2d 905 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Plymouth Builders, Inc. v. Village of Lindenhurst
284 A.D. 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)