Walton v. Incorporated Town of Smithtown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walton v. Incorporated Town of Smithtown

43 A.D.2d 980, 352 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5724

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 980 (Walton v. Incorporated Town of Smithtown) 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

Walton v. Incorporated Town of Smithtown, 43 A.D.2d 980, 352 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 4, 1973 after a nonjury trial, which declared a zoning ordinance unconstitutional in its application to the subject portion of plaintiff’s property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed to be entered declaring the ordinance constitutional as applied to the property in question. In our opinion, plaintiff' failed to meet his burden of proving that application of the ordinance to the subject premises is arbitrary and unreasonable (Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay, 32 N Y 2d 78). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 4, 1973 after a nonjury trial, which declared a zoning ordinance unconstitutional in its application to the subject portion of plaintiff’s property. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed to be entered declaring the ordinance constitutional as applied to the property in question. In our opinion, plaintiff' failed to meet his burden of proving that application of the ordinance to the subject premises is arbitrary and unreasonable (Williams v. Town of Oyster Bay, 32 N Y 2d 78). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 980, 352 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-incorporated-town-of-smithtown-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack