Pyne v. Knaisch

159 A.D.2d 999
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 16, 1990·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The undisputed facts in this record reveal that the rezoning of the subject 7 tá-acre [1000] parcel from single-family to multifamily residential use was consistent with a comprehensive plan for land use within the village (see, Kravetz v Plenge, 84 AD2d 422) and that the amendment was enacted for the general welfare of the community (see generally, 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 5.03 et seq. [3d ed]). Plaintiff failed to overcome the strong presumption of validity which attaches to such legislative determinations, and his contention that this amendment constituted illegal spot zoning was properly rejected (see, Goodrich v Town of Southampton, 39 NY2d 1008, 1009). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. —declaratory judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Pyne v. Knaisch, 159 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

159 A.D.2d 999 (Pyne v. Knaisch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rayle v. Town of Cato Board
295 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Laird v. Town of Montezuma
191 A.D.2d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Eistein v. Board of Trustees
184 A.D.2d 1079 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Baier v. Town of Ellery
182 A.D.2d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)