Ulmer Park Realty Co. v. City of New York

270 A.D. 1044, 63 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5257
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 1044 (Ulmer Park Realty Co. v. City of New York) 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
Ulmer Park Realty Co. v. City of New York, 270 A.D. 1044, 63 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Judgment declaring unconstitutional the Zoning Resolution of the City of Mew York as applied to plaintiff’s land, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. Plaintiff failéd to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of the resolution. Its proof was insufficient to justify the finding that its land could not reasonably and profitably be used in conformity with the zoning resolution. Proof that the property could be more profitably or more beneficially used for industrial purposes than for residential purposes is not sufficient to warrant a declaration that a zoning resolution is confiscatory and unconstitutional. Where the suitability of plaintiff’s property for residential use presents a debatable question, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the local legislative [1045]*1045body. (Kraft V. Village of Bastings-on-Budson, 258 App. Div. 1060, affd. 285 N. Y. 639; Franklin v. Incorporated Village of Floral Park, 269 App. Div. 695, affd. 294 N. Y. 862.) Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Settle order on notice within ten days from the date of this decision. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Klein v. Town of Oyster Bay
86 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Dauernheim, Inc. v. Town Board of Hempstead
42 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
285 N.E.2d 291 (New York Court of Appeals, 1972)
Fitzgerald v. Town of Oyster Bay
13 A.D.2d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Wiltwyck School for Boys, Inc. v. Perry
24 Misc. 2d 281 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Gullo v. Village of Lindenhurst
16 Misc. 2d 761 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Scarsdale Supply Co. v. Village of Scarsdale
15 Misc. 2d 289 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Grac v. Town of Hempstead
9 Misc. 2d 935 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Hates v. City of Yonkers
1 A.D.2d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
New York Trap Rock Corp. v. Town of Clarkstown
1 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Town of Greenburgh v. Buser
4 Misc. 2d 513 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Plymouth Builders, Inc. v. Village of Lindenhurst
284 A.D. 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1954)
Hewlett v. Town of Hempstead
3 Misc. 2d 945 (New York Supreme Court, 1954)
Lockard v. City of Los Angeles
202 P.2d 38 (California Supreme Court, 1949)
Village of Old Westbury v. Foster
193 Misc. 47 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D. 1044, 63 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulmer-park-realty-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1946.