109 Misc. 2d 169 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1981
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Order reversed, on the law, information reinstated and matter remanded for all further proceedings.
Defendant was charged with improperly conducting a real estate business in a residential zone. Defendant, through its sole stockholder, admitted conducting such a business but claimed that it was a valid accessory use by virtue of a provision which permitted “a physician, lawyer, architect, teacher or similar professional person residing on the premises” to maintain an office subject to certain other restrictions not here relevant. The court below found the relevant sections of the ordinance unconstitutional because of the vagueness of the afore-mentioned provisions regulating accessory uses.
Concur: Farley, P.J., and Geiler, J.; O’Gorman, J., taking no part.