From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pyne v. Knaisch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. The undisputed facts in this record reveal that the rezoning of the subject 7 1/2-acre parcel from single-family to multifamily residential use was consistent with a comprehensive plan for land use within the village (see, Kravetz v Plenge, 84 A.D.2d 422) and that the amendment was enacted for the general welfare of the community (see generally, 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 5.03 et seq. [3d ed]). Plaintiff failed to overcome the strong presumption of validity which attaches to such legislative determinations, and his contention that this amendment constituted illegal spot zoning was properly rejected (see, Goodrich v Town of Southampton, 39 N.Y.2d 1008, 1009).


Summaries of

Pyne v. Knaisch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Pyne v. Knaisch

Case Details

Full title:DALE T. PYNE, Appellant, v. GEORGE F. KNAISCH et al., Constituting the…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 16, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Rayle v. Town of Cato Board

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. "[Z]oning determinations enjoy a strong…

Matter of Laird v. Town of Montezuma

Supreme Court properly denied relief to petitioners. The legislative determination that the amendment was…