New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General City Law § 83 (2026)

Amendments, alterations and changes in district lines

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 83. Amendments, alterations and changes in district lines.  1. The
common council may from time to time on its own motion or on petition,
after public notice and hearing, which hearing may be held by the
council or by a committee of the council or by the planning board, amend
the regulations and districts established under any ordinance or local
law adopted pursuant to paragraphs twenty-four and twenty-five of
section twenty of this chapter.  Wherever the owners of fifty per centum
or more of the frontage in any district or part thereof shall present a
petition duly signed and acknowledged, to the common council, requesting
an amendment, supplement, change or repeal of the regulations prescribed
for such district or part thereof, it shall be the duty of the council
to vote upon said petition within ninety days after the filing of the
same by the petitioners with the secretary of the council.
  2. An amendment shall be effected by a simple majority vote of the
council, except that an amendment shall require the approval of at least
three-fourths of the members of the council in the event such amendment
is the subject of a written protest, presented to the council and signed
by:
  (a) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land included
in such proposed change; or
  (b) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land
immediately adjacent to that land included in such proposed change,
extending one hundred feet therefrom; or
  (c) the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of land directly
opposite thereto, extending one hundred feet from the street frontage of
such opposite land.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2008 · leading case: Soc'y of New York Hosp. v. Del Vecchio, 123 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Soc'y of New York Hosp. v. Del Vecchio, 123 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 15× “Thereupon, the petitioner commenced this proceeding in the nature of mandamus seeking, inter alia, to compel the respondents to perform a duty enjoined upon them by General City Law § 83 to consider and vote upon the application.”

Omnipoint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Peekskill, 202 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges that the Common Council simply ignored statutorily mandated procedures, see N.Y. General City Law § 83 , as well as the strictures of its own City Code, see Peeks-kill Zoning Code § 300-56, in attempting to neutralize the Director of Public Works because he…”

Soc'y of the New York Hosp. v. Del Vecchio, 512 N.E.2d 302 (NY 1987). · cites it 4× “In this CPLR article 78 proceeding brought to compel respondents to act formally upon the application, the question is whether under General City Law § 83 such formal action is required.”

Interlaken Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Saratoga Springs, 267 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 2× “was ambiguous and did not comply with the requirements of General City Law § 83. Finding the existence of material issues of fact as to each cause of action, Supreme Court denied the motion resulting in this appeal.”

Benderson Dev. Co. v. City of Utica, 5 Misc. 3d 467 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). · cites it 10× “This Article 78 Petition/Complaint: Benderson now alleges that the “three-fourths” provision of Utica City Code § 2-29-123 (6) (a) (i) is invalid as a matter of law because it directly conflicts and is inconsistent with General City Law § 83 (2), which states that an amendment…”

Annabi v. City Council, 47 A.D.3d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “In granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court relied on the provisions of General City Law § 83 which mandate such hearings.”

Carcuro v. Madigan, 124 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 2× “Petitioner contends that the loss of the property’s nonconforming use status amounted to an "automatic reversion” to a different zoning classification subject to the procedural rules set forth in General City Law § 83, which includes public notice and a hearing.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.