Cunney v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF VILLAGE OF GRAND VIEW
660 F.3d 612
2d Cir.2011Background
- Cunney owns a half-acre adjacent to River Road in Grand View-on-Hudson; house height triggered section E of Zoning Law (R-10).
- Section E restricts height to not more than four-and-one-half feet above the easterly side of River Road to preserve river views.
- ZBA ambiguously treated measurement point on River Road; council members offered varied interpretations, but the ZBA declined to interpret the ordinance.
- Village Planning Board approved Cunney’s revised plan with multiple measurement stations (five stations) to show compliance.
- Collazuol later corrected road-elevation data; at station 0+62 the height exceeded the restriction by 2.95 feet, depending on reference point.
- Cunney sought CO; Knizeski denied based on Collazuol’s final measure; Cunney appealed to ZBA; district court granted summary judgment for Village Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section E is void-for-vagueness as applied | Cunney argues lack of notice and potential arbitrary enforcement | Village asserts core meaning saves law | Section E is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cunney |
| Whether the core-meaning saving the ordinance applies | Core meaning cannot justify arbitrary enforcement | Core purpose preserves river views | Core meaning does not save the ordinance here; vagueness persists |
| Whether Cunney has a substantive due process entitlement to a CO | He spent substantial sums; vested CO entitlement exists | No entitlement until CO denied under valid law | Vacated; remanded for further proceedings consistent with vagueness ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (vagueness and fair notice standards in due process)
- Thibodeau v. Portuondo, 486 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2007) (fair notice and enforcement standards)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (explicit standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement)
- Goguen v. United States, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) (hard-core violator concept of core meaning)
- Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006) (core meaning and arbitrary enforcement analysis)
- Rubin v. Garvin, 544 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 2008) (reasonableness notice despite imperfect precision)
- VIP of Berlin, LLC v. Town of Berlin, 593 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2010) (enforcement standards and interpretation by officials)
- Rock of Ages Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 170 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1999) (reasonableness and flexibility in regulatory compliance)