Pyne v. Knaisch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pyne v. Knaisch

159 A.D.2d 999

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 999 (Pyne v. Knaisch) 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

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

Pincite

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]*1000parcel 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

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]*1000parcel 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyne-v-knaisch-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack