Romantini v. Village of East Hills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romantini v. Village of East Hills

70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538

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

DecidedJune 18, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 934 (Romantini v. Village of East Hills) 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

Romantini v. Village of East Hills, 70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to declare the zoning ordinance of the Village of East Hills unconstitutional as it applies to plaintiff’s real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance under review is not unconstitutional or confiscatory as applied to plaintiff’s property. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant. Inasmuch as it is improper in a declaratory judgment action to dismiss the complaint, even though the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, app dsmd 371 US 74), we declare that the ordinance is not unconstitutional or confiscatory as applied to plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff did not establish that he is precluded by the ordinance from the use of the property for any purpose to which it may be reasonably adapted (see Williams v Town of Oyster Bay, 32 NY2d 78). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to declare the zoning ordinance of the Village of East Hills unconstitutional as it applies to plaintiff’s real property, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision declaring that the ordinance under review is not unconstitutional or confiscatory as applied to plaintiff’s property. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant. Inasmuch as it is improper in a declaratory judgment action to dismiss the complaint, even though the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, app dsmd 371 US 74), we declare that the ordinance is not unconstitutional or confiscatory as applied to plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff did not establish that he is precluded by the ordinance from the use of the property for any purpose to which it may be reasonably adapted (see Williams v Town of Oyster Bay, 32 NY2d 78). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Rabin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romantini-v-village-of-east-hills-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack