first branch test in New York

1987Nevertheless, obviously building on the court’s concerns in Matter of Golden v Planning Bd. (supra) that regional considerations should be taken into account and that the rights of developers could not be viewed separately and apart from those in search of decent housing, the Berenson court formulated the following test to determine the validity of a zoning ordinance challenged as having an exclusionary intent or impact: "The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community * * * Thus, in this case, the court m

1985(Cf. Matter of Golden v Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 NY2d 359, 378 , app dsmd 490 US 1003 , supra.) * * * “The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1985(See Udell v Haas, 21 NY2d 463 .) Of course, what may be appropriate for one community may differ substantially from what is appropriate for another.

1975(See Udell v Haas, 21 NY2d 463 .) Of course, what may be appropriate for one community may differ substantially from what is appropriate for another. 2 Thus, in this case, the court must ascertain what types of housing presently exist in New Castle, their quantity and quality, and whether this array adequately meets the present needs of the town.

1985(Cf. Matter of Golden v Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 NY2d 359, 378 , app dsmd 490 US 1003 , supra.) * * * “The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1984Any issue as to the validity of the substantive provisions of the contract (including its failure to reflect a meeting of the minds) would be for the arbitrator (see Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 198 ).

1975(Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, 233 App Div 250 , affd without opn 261 NY 506 , supra.) While it may be impermissible in an undeveloped community to prevent entirely the construction of multiple-family residences anywhere in the locality "(see Dowsey v Village of Kensington, 257 NY 221 , supra), it is perfectly acceptable to limit new construction of such buildings where such units already exist (Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, supra.) The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1975(Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, 233 App Div 250 , affd without opn 261 NY 506 , supra.) While it may be impermissible in an undeveloped community to prevent entirely the construction of multiple-family residences anywhere in the locality "(see Dowsey v Village of Kensington, 257 NY 221 , supra), it is perfectly acceptable to limit new construction of such buildings where such units already exist (Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, supra.) The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1975(Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, 233 App Div 250 , affd without opn 261 NY 506 , supra.) While it may be impermissible in an undeveloped community to prevent entirely the construction of multiple-family residences anywhere in the locality "(see Dowsey v Village of Kensington, 257 NY 221 , supra), it is perfectly acceptable to limit new construction of such buildings where such units already exist (Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, supra.) The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1975(Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, 233 App Div 250 , affd without opn 261 NY 506 , supra.) While it may be impermissible in an undeveloped community to prevent entirely the construction of multiple-family residences anywhere in the locality "(see Dowsey v Village of Kensington, 257 NY 221 , supra), it is perfectly acceptable to limit new construction of such buildings where such units already exist (Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v Culley, supra.) The first branch of the test, then, is simply whether the board has provided a properly balanced and well ordered plan for the community.

1900Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an explicit statutory declaration of the rule which has been adhered to by this court ever since the decision in Hendrickson v. People, 10 N. Y. 13 .

1893And on the first branch of their defense they cite Hull v. Carnley, 11 N. Y. 501 .

1854Upon the motion to set aside the nonsuit granted on the first trial, we held, as to the point of loss of services, that pregnancy and the birth of a child were not essential to the right of action, and that it was sufficient if illness of the daughter, whereby she was unable to labor, had been produced by shame for the seduction. ( 15 Barb. 279 .) In addition to the references in the opinion then delivered, in support of the first branch of this doctrine, I cite Briggs v. Evans, (5 Iredell, 16,) Sedg. on Dam. 2d ed. 543.