owner of property acquire immunity in New York

1988The reasonableness of the regulation is not diminished by the fact that substantially substandard facilities will have to be upgraded at the time of change of operator, likely resulting in a decrease in the market value of these facilities. * "It is clearly settled that 'in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws’ ” (Matter of Engelsher v Jacobs, supra, at 375, quoting Queenside Hills Co. v Saxl, 328 US 80, 83 ).

1967Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, 328 U. S. 80 ; Matter of Engelsher v. Jacobs, 5 N Y 2d 370).

1960In that case at page 375 the court stated: “It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws.’ (Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra, p. 83 ; see, also, Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 [U. S. 394, 410 ; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U. S. 303 .) If authority is needed for such a proposition in this State, Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church ( 145 N. Y. 32, 43-44 ) will substantiate this position.” In Adamec v. Post ( 273 N. Y. 25

1960It is a well-recognized principle in the decisions of the State and Federal courts that the citizen holds his property subject not only to the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the State, but also subject to the lawful exercise of the police power by the Legislature; in the one ease property is taken by condemnation and due compensation; in the other the necessary and reasonable expenses and loss of property in making reasonable changes in existing structures, or in erecting additions thereto, are damnum absque injuria(Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 330 .) ” A case a

1960In that case at page 375 the court stated: “It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws.’ (Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra, p. 83 ; see, also, Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 [U. S. 394, 410 ; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U. S. 303 .) If authority is needed for such a proposition in this State, Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church ( 145 N. Y. 32, 43-44 ) will substantiate this position.” In Adamec v. Post ( 273 N. Y. 25

1960In that case at page 375 the court stated: “It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws.’ (Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra, p. 83 ; see, also, Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 [U. S. 394, 410 ; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U. S. 303 .) If authority is needed for such a proposition in this State, Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church ( 145 N. Y. 32, 43-44 ) will substantiate this position.” In Adamec v. Post ( 273 N. Y. 25

1978But in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the existing laws * * * The police power is one of the least limitable of governmental powers, and in its operation often cuts down property rights * * * The question of validity turns on the power of the legislature to deal with the prescribed class.” Furthermore, the danger to which a valid exercise of police power must relate "need only be reasonably apprehended.” (Wiggins v Town of Somers, 4 NY2d 215, 218-219 ; see Matter of Stubbe v Adamson, 220

1967It is clearly settled that in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the existing laws (Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Wilson, 269 App. Div. 691 , affd. 294 N. Y. 917 , affd. sub nom.

1967It is clearly settled that in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the existing laws (Queenside Hills Realty Co. v. Wilson, 269 App. Div. 691 , affd. 294 N. Y. 917 , affd. sub nom.

1963That one class is treated differently than other classes can give rise to no complaint under the equal protection clause.’’’ The further objection that the plaintiffs conducted their schools and nurseries in compliance with the old,, superseded Sanitary Code and that the new code imposes additional financial burdens upon them resulting in pecuniary loss, thus making the regulations unconstitutional, was also disposed of by the same court, which stated (p. 375): “ It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercises of the police power becaus

1963That one class is treated differently than other classes can give rise to no complaint under the equal protection clause.’’’ The further objection that the plaintiffs conducted their schools and nurseries in compliance with the old,, superseded Sanitary Code and that the new code imposes additional financial burdens upon them resulting in pecuniary loss, thus making the regulations unconstitutional, was also disposed of by the same court, which stated (p. 375): “ It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercises of the police power becaus

1960It is a well-recognized principle in the decisions of the State and Federal courts that the citizen holds his property subject not only to the exercise of the right of eminent domain by the State, but also subject to the lawful exercise of the police power by the Legislature; in the one ease property is taken by condemnation and due compensation; in the other the necessary and reasonable expenses and loss of property in making reasonable changes in existing structures, or in erecting additions thereto, are damnum absque injuria(Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 325, 330 .) ” A case a

1960In that case at page 375 the court stated: “It is clearly settled that ‘ in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws.’ (Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra, p. 83 ; see, also, Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 [U. S. 394, 410 ; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U. S. 303 .) If authority is needed for such a proposition in this State, Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church ( 145 N. Y. 32, 43-44 ) will substantiate this position.” In Adamec v. Post ( 273 N. Y. 25