Nicholson v. Incorporated Village of Garden City
112 A.D.3d 893
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Hybrid action for declaratory judgment and CPLR article 78-review challenges Local Law No. 4-2009 as unconstitutional.
- Local Law 4-2009 rezoned four Central Section corner lots from R-20 to R-20C, limiting subdivisions for 40,000+ sq ft corner lots.
- Plaintiffs own a 62,500 sq ft corner lot affected by the zoning change.
- Enactment followed a Village study by an expert, which advised additional regulation and considered alternatives.
- Court analyzes facial challenge to constitutionality, not as-applied to plaintiffs, under strong presumptions of validity.
- Lower court granted partial summary judgment for unconstitutional ruling; appellate court remands for entry of non-unconstitutional judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of Local Law 4-2009 | Plaintiff argues the law is unconstitutional on its face. | Defendants contend the law satisfies police power and plan-consistency requirements. | Not unconstitutional; remanded for judgment declaring law not unconstitutional. |
| Relation to comprehensive plan | Law undermines the village’s comprehensive planning objectives. | Law is reasonably related to a rational comprehensive plan. | Law not inconsistent with comprehensive plan. |
| Uniformity and lack of arbitrary treatment | Challenged as reverse spot zoning or selective impact on plaintiffs. | Law applies across related corner lots; not arbitrary singled out. | No merit; law is not arbitrary or singling out the plaintiff. |
| Compliance with police power standard for zoning | Law fails to bear substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or welfare. | Zoning advances legitimate interests in preserving larger corner lots and aesthetic character. | Law reasonably related to police power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 US 104 (US Supreme Court 1978) (test for zoning impact on public land-use planning under police power)
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (US Supreme Court 1926) (foundational zoning authority under police power)
- Lighthouse Shores v. Town of Islip, 41 NY2d 7 (NY 1976) (strong presumption of constitutionality for local ordinances)
- Town of Huntington v. Park Shore Country Day Camp of Dix Hills, 47 NY2d 61 (NY 1979) (zoning must align with comprehensive planning)
- Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 72 NY2d 121 (NY 1988) (legislative delegation to municipalities with comprehensive planning framework)
- Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 NY2d 102 (NY 1975) (land-use regulation requires consideration of community-wide planning)
- Taylor v. Incorporated Vil. of Head of Harbor, 104 AD2d 642 (1st Dep’t 1984) (planning rationales support zoning classifications)
- Peck Slip Assoc. LLC v. City Council of City of New York, 26 AD3d 209 (1st Dep’t 2006) (total planning strategy and public good over ad hoc decisions)