Town of Islip v. F. E. Summers Coal & Lumber Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Islip v. F. E. Summers Coal & Lumber Co.

232 A.D. 701

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D. 701 (Town of Islip v. F. E. Summers Coal & Lumber Co.) 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

Town of Islip v. F. E. Summers Coal & Lumber Co., 232 A.D. 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the appellant, with costs. The question here involves the constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance adopted by the town of Islip, pursuant to article 17-C, sections 349-0 to 349-w, of the Town Law,

* by resolution adopted on the 11th day of August, [702]*7021928, * enacting a Zoning Ordinance for that portion of the village of Islip situate on the southerly side of Montauk highway west of Cedar avenue, affecting the premises in question. The property is in a business use district under the Zoning Ordinance, which ordinance requires a ten-foot setback. The building is in the course of construction, approximately on the property line. By the judgment, the appellant is enjoined from erecting its building because it violates the Zoning Ordinance, and its petition for an alternative writ of mandamus is dismissed. We are of opinion that, upon the record before us, the provision of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a setback of ten feet is arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, does not withstand the test of constitutionality. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed, and new findings will be made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Added by Laws of 1926, chap. 714.— [Rep.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the appellant, with costs. The question here involves the constitutionality of the Zoning Ordinance adopted by the town of Islip, pursuant to article 17-C, sections 349-0 to 349-w, of the Town Law,

* by resolution adopted on the 11th day of August, [702]*7021928, * enacting a Zoning Ordinance for that portion of the village of Islip situate on the southerly side of Montauk highway west of Cedar avenue, affecting the premises in question. The property is in a business use district under the Zoning Ordinance, which ordinance requires a ten-foot setback. The building is in the course of construction, approximately on the property line. By the judgment, the appellant is enjoined from erecting its building because it violates the Zoning Ordinance, and its petition for an alternative writ of mandamus is dismissed. We are of opinion that, upon the record before us, the provision of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a setback of ten feet is arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, does not withstand the test of constitutionality. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this decision are reversed, and new findings will be made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Added by Laws of 1926, chap. 714.— [Rep.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D. 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-islip-v-f-e-summers-coal-lumber-co-nyappdiv-1931.