Town of Pittsford v. Gallea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Pittsford v. Gallea

25 A.D.2d 479, 266 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5206

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 479 (Town of Pittsford v. Gallea) 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 Pittsford v. Gallea, 25 A.D.2d 479, 266 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Plaintiffs in Action No. 2 brought this action for a judgment declaring that section 12 of article II of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Pittsford was, as to them, unconstitutional and void. Special Term correctly sustained the validity of the ordinance. It was error, however, to dismiss the complaint merely because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration sought by them. (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334.) Defendants were entitled to a declaration that the ordinance is valid. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term [480]*480dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 and enjoining defendants in Action No. 1.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified in accordance with memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Plaintiffs in Action No. 2 brought this action for a judgment declaring that section 12 of article II of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Pittsford was, as to them, unconstitutional and void. Special Term correctly sustained the validity of the ordinance. It was error, however, to dismiss the complaint merely because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration sought by them. (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334.) Defendants were entitled to a declaration that the ordinance is valid. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term [480]*480dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 and enjoining defendants in Action No. 1.)

Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 479, 266 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-pittsford-v-gallea-nyappdiv-1966.