Sloane v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloane v. Weber

52 A.D.2d 1055, 384 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12969

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

DecidedMay 21, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1055 (Sloane v. Weber) 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

Sloane v. Weber, 52 A.D.2d 1055, 384 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs, as owners of real property adjacent to commercially rezoned premises, commenced this action against the defendants, members of the Town Board of Cheektowaga. Pursuant to CPLR 3001 plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the board’s approval of the rezoning application unconstitutional. After service of a notice for examinations before trial, defendants moved for a protective order and for summary judgment. The court erred in denying in part the motion for a protective order with respect to the individual members of the town board (Burack v Town of Poughkeepsie, 32 AD2d 806). However, the Town of Cheektowaga should have been directed to produce for examination any town officer or employee who, in its judgment, has knowledge of the facts of this case (cf. Town Law, § 65). This examination must be limited to the general motives of the legislation and it may not extend to the individual or personal motives of the individual legislators in voting for this legislation (see Burack v Town of Poughkeepsie, supra). There was no error, however, in the court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment. Although defendants are correct in asserting that zoning decisions are presumed to be constitutional, that contention alone will not support this motion. Defendants failed to present evidentiary facts refuting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint (Headwell v Sandler, 46 AD2d 584). Since those allegations must be deemed true on a motion for summary judgment (Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn, of City of N. Y. v City of New York, 27 NY2d 410), defendants have not shown that there is no triable issue of fact or that they have a meritorious defense (Ball v United Artists Corp., 13 AD2d 133). In the absence of such proof, summary judgment will not lie. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—protective order and summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs, as owners of real property adjacent to commercially rezoned premises, commenced this action against the defendants, members of the Town Board of Cheektowaga. Pursuant to CPLR 3001 plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the board’s approval of the rezoning application unconstitutional. After service of a notice for examinations before trial, defendants moved for a protective order and for summary judgment. The court erred in denying in part the motion for a protective order with respect to the individual members of the town board (Burack v Town of Poughkeepsie, 32 AD2d 806). However, the Town of Cheektowaga should have been directed to produce for examination any town officer or employee who, in its judgment, has knowledge of the facts of this case (cf. Town Law, § 65). This examination must be limited to the general motives of the legislation and it may not extend to the individual or personal motives of the individual legislators in voting for this legislation (see Burack v Town of Poughkeepsie, supra). There was no error, however, in the court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment. Although defendants are correct in asserting that zoning decisions are presumed to be constitutional, that contention alone will not support this motion. Defendants failed to present evidentiary facts refuting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint (Headwell v Sandler, 46 AD2d 584). Since those allegations must be deemed true on a motion for summary judgment (Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn, of City of N. Y. v City of New York, 27 NY2d 410), defendants have not shown that there is no triable issue of fact or that they have a meritorious defense (Ball v United Artists Corp., 13 AD2d 133). In the absence of such proof, summary judgment will not lie. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—protective order and summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1055, 384 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloane-v-weber-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack