— In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring Rye City Code § 197-13.2 invalid and unconstitutional, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered March 5,1984, as denied injunctive relief against the enforcement of that section of the city code pending a hearing to determine if said section was confiscatory with respect to plaintiff’s property, and defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment declaring said section of the city code valid.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof are
The ordinance in question purports to create a new zoning district, applicable only to plaintiff’s 22-acre lot. The ordinance further directs, among many other things, that the purported district must be maintained in single ownership, and further provides that any development of the property, which is severely restricted, be limited to residential condominiums.
As a fundamental principle, zoning is concerned with the use of the land, and not with the person who owns or occupies it (see, e.g., Matter of Dexter v Town Bd.,
The instant ordinance, which purports to direct how the property may be held to the exclusion of all other forms of ownership, must fail because, as a general principle, a municipality does not have the power to regulate the manner of ownership of a legal estate, as “it is use rather than form of ownership that is the proper concern and focus of zoning and planning regulations” (North Fork Motel v Grigonis, supra; see also, McHenry State Bank v City of McHenry, 113 I11 App 3d 82,
In light of our determination, we do not reach the other issues. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.