At page 1010 Analyzing challenge to zoning occupancy definition2 citing cases�Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff,…
- Matter of 16 Main St. Prop., LLC v. Vill. of Geneseo, 225 A.D.3d 1204 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2024).publishedWe reject petitioner's contention that the definitions of "family" are illegal or unconstitutional ( see Village of Brockport v Webster , 283 AD2d 1010, 1010 [4th Dept 2001]; see also Grodinsky v City of Cortland , 163 AD3d 1181 , 1182-118…
- Grodinsky v. City of Cortland, 82 N.Y.S.3d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).publishedIn light of the foregoing, plaintiffs have not established that the challenged provisions of the ordinance are unconstitutional ( see Matter of Atlas Henrietta, LLC v Town of Henrietta Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 120 AD3d 1606 , 1606 [2014]; V…
At page 1011 Declaring village family definition constitutional1 citing casement to the Village dismissing the third affirmative defense rather than declaring the rights of the parties (see, Pless v Town of Royalton, 185 AD2d 659, 660,…
- Atlas Henrietta, LLC v. Town of Henrietta Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 Misc. 3d 325 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013).publishedContrary to petitioners’ assertion, the Fourth Department in sustaining the same “family” definition expressly decreed that it was “not illegal, discriminatory, void or unenforceable under the New York Constitution and laws of the State of…
v.
Robert D. Webster
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff, the Village of Brockport (Village), commenced this action against defendants, the owners of residential properties in the Village, seeking, inter alia, an injunction directing defendants to cease and desist their alleged violations of certain zoning provisions of the Village Code. In their third affirmative defense, defendants allege that the limitation of occupancy of single-family residences based upon the definition of “family” in section 58-2 of the Brockport Village Code is illegal, discriminatory, void and unenforceable under the New York Constitution and laws of the State of New York and the United States Constitution.
Supreme Court properly concluded that the challenged section of the Code does not violate the New York Constitution (see, Matter of Unification Theol. Seminary u City of Poughkeepsie, 201 AD2d 484), the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15; see, McMinn v Town of Oyster Bay, 105 AD2d 46, 50, affd 66 NY2d 544), or the United States Constitution (see, Village of Belle Terre v Boraas, 416 US 1), and thus properly denied defendants’ cross motion for judgment on the third affirmative defense. The court erred, however, in granting judg[*1011]ment to the Village dismissing the third affirmative defense rather than declaring the rights of the parties (see, Pless v Town of Royalton, 185 AD2d 659, 660, affd 81 NY2d 1047; Matter of Builtland Partners v LaLanne Biltmore Health Spa, 93 AD2d 727, 728). We modify the judgment, therefore, by vacating the provision dismissing the third affirmative defense and granting judgment in favor of the Village declaring that the definition of “family” in section 58-2 of the Village Code is not illegal, discriminatory, void or unenforceable under the New York Constitution and laws of the State of New York or the United States Constitution. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.