Tarolli v. Howe

New York Court of Appeals

Tarolli v. Howe

340 N.E.2d 725, 37 N.Y.2d 865, 378 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2245

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 340 N.E.2d 725 (Tarolli v. Howe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tarolli v. Howe, 340 N.E.2d 725, 37 N.Y.2d 865, 378 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2245 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division’s construction of subdivision (b) of section 7 of respondent Town of Geddes’ Zoning Ordinance and its conclusion that "the obvious intent of the section was to restrict development of private profit-making enterprises in a residential district”. Moreover, we find the regulation constitutional and a permissible exercise of the police power conferred on respondent by the Legislature (see Town Law, § 261). As was stated in Matter of Wulfsohn v Burden (241 NY 288, 300-301), "[t]he primary purpose of [a residential] district is safe, healthful and comfortable family life rather than the development of commercial instincts and the pursuit of pecuniary profits.” Indeed, almost 40 years ago, in a case upholding the exclusion of boarding houses operated for profit in a residential district, we noted that "[provisions for the exclusion of business enterprises from residential zones are now generally found in zoning ordinances” (Baddour v City of Long Beach, 279 NY 167, 174, app dsmd 308 US 503; cf. McCarter v Beckwith, 247 App Div 289, 292, affd 272 NY 488, cert den 299 US 601; see, also, 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 9.36).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division’s construction of subdivision (b) of section 7 of respondent Town of Geddes’ Zoning Ordinance and its conclusion that "the obvious intent of the section was to restrict development of private profit-making enterprises in a residential district”. Moreover, we find the regulation constitutional and a permissible exercise of the police power conferred on respondent by the Legislature (see Town Law, § 261). As was stated in Matter of Wulfsohn v Burden (241 NY 288, 300-301), "[t]he primary purpose of [a residential] district is safe, healthful and comfortable family life rather than the development of commercial instincts and the pursuit of pecuniary profits.” Indeed, almost 40 years ago, in a case upholding the exclusion of boarding houses operated for profit in a residential district, we noted that "[provisions for the exclusion of business enterprises from residential zones are now generally found in zoning ordinances” (Baddour v City of Long Beach, 279 NY 167, 174, app dsmd 308 US 503; cf. McCarter v Beckwith, 247 App Div 289, 292, affd 272 NY 488, cert den 299 US 601; see, also, 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 9.36).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.E.2d 725, 37 N.Y.2d 865, 378 N.Y.S.2d 357, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarolli-v-howe-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack