Plander v. Cohalan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plander v. Cohalan

43 A.D.2d 958, 352 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5778

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 958 (Plander 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

Plander v. Cohalan, 43 A.D.2d 958, 352 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alla for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 18, 1972 after a nonjury trial, which (1) declared sections 68-338 and 68-339 of the Islip Code unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs’ real property and (2) directed defendants to issue a permit to plaintiffs to construct and operate a gasoline service station on their property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendants declaring that the ordinance is constitutional as applied to plaintiffs’ property. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that application of the ordinance to the subject premises .is arbitrary and unreasonable (Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay', 32 N Y 2d 78). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alla for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 18, 1972 after a nonjury trial, which (1) declared sections 68-338 and 68-339 of the Islip Code unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs’ real property and (2) directed defendants to issue a permit to plaintiffs to construct and operate a gasoline service station on their property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendants declaring that the ordinance is constitutional as applied to plaintiffs’ property. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that application of the ordinance to the subject premises .is arbitrary and unreasonable (Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay', 32 N Y 2d 78). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 958, 352 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plander-v-cohalan-nyappdiv-1974.