Opinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that Local Laws, 1994, No. 6 of the Town of Mamaroneck is constitutional as applied to the plaintiff's property.
To establish a successful claim that a land regulation has effected a taking of his or her property, a property owner must show by "dollars and cents" evidence that under no use permitted by the challenged regulation would his property be capable of producing a reasonable return ( de St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 N.Y.2d 66, 77). "[T]he economic value, or all but a bare residue of the economic value, of the parcels must have been destroyed by the regulations at issue" ( de St. Aubin v. Flacke, supra, at 77; see also, Spears v. Berle, 48 N.Y.2d 254, 263; Matter of Grimpel Assocs. v. Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 431, 432; Clearwater Holding v. Town of Hempstead, 237 A.D.2d 400; Matter of Licari v. Scheyer, 193 A.D.2d 604; Matter of W.W.W. Assocs. v. Rettaliata, 175 A.D.2d 133; Matter of Kransteuber v. Scheyer, 176 A.D.2d 724, affd 80 N.Y.2d 783).
Here, the valuation report proffered by the plaintiff demonstrated that notwithstanding the enactment of the challenged ordinance, the subject property was capable of earning a reasonable return and was not deprived of "all but a bare residue" of value. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.