112 A.D.3d 893
N.Y. App. Div.2013Background
- This is a hybrid CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment challenge to Local Law No. 4-2009 of Garden City, alleging unconstitutionality.
- Local Law 4-2009 rezoned four corner lots in the Central Section from R-20 (min 20,000 sq ft) to R-20C (min 40,000 sq ft for corner lots).
- The challenged property is a 62,500-square-foot corner lot owned by plaintiffs.
- The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment request and granted part of defendants’ summary judgment seeking a ruling that the law is not unconstitutional, while cross-movants sought opposite relief.
- Appellate court reversed on the lawfulness issue, remanding to enter a judgment declaring the law not unconstitutional.
- The court affirms that zoning is presumed constitutional, requires substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, and must align with a comprehensive plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of the local law | Plaintiffs contend the law is unconstitutional on its face. | Village argues the law is a valid exercise of police power without facial infirmity. | Not unconstitutional; facial challenge sustained against plaintiffs |
| Relation to the comprehensive plan | Law conflicts with the Village’s comprehensive plan. | Law is reasonably related to the plan and intended to preserve larger corner lots. | Not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan |
| Reverse spot zoning | Law targets plaintiffs' property for unfavorable treatment. | Law applies to 20 corner lots and derives from a total planning strategy. | No reverse spot zoning established |
| Uniformity under Village Law § 7-702 | Law violates uniformity requirements. | Uniformity not violated by the zoning scheme. | No merit to uniformity claim |
| Remission/entry of judgment in declaratory action | Court should declare unconstitutionality and provide relief. | Relief appropriate but not contrary to the law; remand for entry of judgment of not unconstitutional. | Remission granted; judgment to declare not unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Lighthouse Shores v. Town of Islip, 41 N.Y.2d 7 (N.Y. 1976) (exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality for zoning ordinances)
- ATM One, LLC v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 91 A.D.3d 585 (2d Dep’t 2012) (local laws receive presumption of validity)
- American Ind. Paper Mills Supply Co. v. County of Westchester, 65 A.D.3d 1173 (2d Dep’t 2009) (statutory zoning standards accord deference)
- Town of Huntington v. Park Shore Country Day Camp of Dix Hills, 47 N.Y.2d 61 (1979) (zoning must relate to legitimate public welfare objectives)
- Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 72 N.Y.2d 121 (1988) (land-use regulation policy and comprehensive planning)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (police power and zoning constitutional framework)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (tests for land-use regulation and public interest)
- Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102 (1975) (land-use regulation standards and planning)
- Taylor v. Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 104 A.D.2d 642 (2d Dep’t 1984) (comprehensive planning supports zoning decisions)
- Peck Slip Assocs. LLC v. City Council of City of New York, 26 A.D.3d 209 (1st Dep’t 2006) (total planning strategy and rational allocation of land use)