Pondfield Road Co. v. Village of Bronxville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pondfield Road Co. v. Village of Bronxville

1 A.D.2d 897, 150 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 897 (Pondfield Road Co. v. Village of Bronxville) 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

Pondfield Road Co. v. Village of Bronxville, 1 A.D.2d 897, 150 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for a judgment declaring that amendments, dated May 18, 1953, to article 9 of the Village of Bronxville Building Zone Ordinance, are invalid as confiscatory of plaintiffs’ property and as an unreasonable exercise of the police power. The specific provision attacked, but which is to he considered in conjunction with other provisions, limits the floor area in a business building to one and one-half times the area of the lot. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered after trial, insofar as it dismisses the amended complaint and defendants appeal therefrom, insofar as it denies their motion to reopen the trial for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The ordinance under attack sufficiently provides that hardship such as that claimed by plaintiffs may be avoided or mitigated by a special variation. (Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 226; Arverne Bay Constr. Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N. Y. 222, 226.) Such a variation, granted by the local board of appeals, has been confirmed by this court. (See Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A D 2d 236.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See post, p. 958.]

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

Action for a judgment declaring that amendments, dated May 18, 1953, to article 9 of the Village of Bronxville Building Zone Ordinance, are invalid as confiscatory of plaintiffs’ property and as an unreasonable exercise of the police power. The specific provision attacked, but which is to he considered in conjunction with other provisions, limits the floor area in a business building to one and one-half times the area of the lot. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment entered after trial, insofar as it dismisses the amended complaint and defendants appeal therefrom, insofar as it denies their motion to reopen the trial for the purpose of introducing additional evidence. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The ordinance under attack sufficiently provides that hardship such as that claimed by plaintiffs may be avoided or mitigated by a special variation. (Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 226; Arverne Bay Constr. Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N. Y. 222, 226.) Such a variation, granted by the local board of appeals, has been confirmed by this court. (See Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A D 2d 236.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See post, p. 958.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 897, 150 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pondfield-road-co-v-village-of-bronxville-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack