Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown

29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 677 (Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown) 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

Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown, 29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the Planning Commission of the Village of Scarsdale requiring petitioner to provide, inter alla, a 130-foot front yard set back and a 40-foot side yard with respect to petitioner’s proposed expansion of its existing Temple and disapproving petitioner’s site plan for failure to conform to such requirements. Determination annulled, with costs, and respondents directed to approve petitioner’s application and site plan. In our opinion, the zoning ordinance as amended, though not invalid on its face (see, Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Griffin, 29 A D 2d 672), has been applied in a manner so arbitrary and unreasonable under the circumstances of this case as to result in an invasion of property rights and an interference with the free exercise of religious worship (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd., 1 N Y 2d 508, 521; Matter of Community Synagogue V. Bates, 1 N Y 2d 445, 458). The restrictions imposed on petitioner’s proposed expansion bear no substantial relation to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and must be annulled (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd., supra, p. 526). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur in result and on the ground that in their view the zoning ordinance amendments in question are unconstitutional, as concluded in the dissenting opinion by Benjamin, J., in Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Griffin (29 A D 2d 672).

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the Planning Commission of the Village of Scarsdale requiring petitioner to provide, inter alla, a 130-foot front yard set back and a 40-foot side yard with respect to petitioner’s proposed expansion of its existing Temple and disapproving petitioner’s site plan for failure to conform to such requirements. Determination annulled, with costs, and respondents directed to approve petitioner’s application and site plan. In our opinion, the zoning ordinance as amended, though not invalid on its face (see, Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Griffin, 29 A D 2d 672), has been applied in a manner so arbitrary and unreasonable under the circumstances of this case as to result in an invasion of property rights and an interference with the free exercise of religious worship (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd., 1 N Y 2d 508, 521; Matter of Community Synagogue V. Bates, 1 N Y 2d 445, 458). The restrictions imposed on petitioner’s proposed expansion bear no substantial relation to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community and must be annulled (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd., supra, p. 526). Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur. Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur in result and on the ground that in their view the zoning ordinance amendments in question are unconstitutional, as concluded in the dissenting opinion by Benjamin, J., in Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Griffin (29 A D 2d 672).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 677, 287 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westchester-reform-temple-v-brown-nyappdiv-1968.