From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sloane v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 26, 1973
42 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Opinion

October 26, 1973

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Witmer, Cardamone, Simons and Henry, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners who own lot number 25 on the south side of Zoerb Avenue instituted an article 78 proceeding against the Cheektowaga Town Board to annul its amendment of the Town Zoning map and ordinance which rezoned the easterly 45 feet of lot 23 from R Residential District to C Retail Business District. The effect of the amendment was to put all of lot 23 in the C district, the west 34 feet thereof having previously been so zoned. Lot 23 which adjoins petitioner's lot on the west is owned by Anthony Schilage who also owns a lot in C zone fronting on Union Road the rear of which adjoins the southerly part of the west side of lot 23. When appellants' petition was presented at Special Term they realized that the action of the Town Board, being legislative in nature, could not be reviewed in an article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Mandis v. Gorski, 24 A.D.2d 181). Petitioners, therefore, requested that Special Term view their petition as an action for declaratory judgment in which the validity of the amendment could be decided. In a proper case the court may treat a proceeding commenced in the form of an article 78 proceeding as if it were an action for a declaratory judgment (CPLR 103, subd. [c]; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 103.08; Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v. Onondaga County Water Auth., 29 A.D.2d 1042, affd. 24 N.Y.2d 400; Matter of Mandis v. Gorski, supra). Where, as here, the owner of the rezoned property is not before the court, the "court may, and ordinarily must, refuse to render a declaratory judgment". ( Manhattan Stor. Warehouse Co. v. Movers Warehousemover's Assn., 289 N.Y. 82, 88; Wood v. City of Salamanca, 289 N.Y. 279, 283.) The petition was properly dismissed. Appellants may still maintain an action for a declaratory judgment, however, despite dismissal of their petition (see Lutheran Church v. City of New York, 27 A.D.2d 237).


Summaries of

Matter of Sloane v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 26, 1973
42 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)
Case details for

Matter of Sloane v. Weber

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHESTER SLOANE et al., Appellants, v. DANIEL E. WEBER et…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1973

Citations

42 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)

Citing Cases

William Kollmer Contracting, Ltd. v. Town of Huntington

Petitioner is the contract vendee of a 24 acre subdivision located with the area rezoned.. This Court's prior…

Matter of Wllmsvlle S.E. Amherst v. Sharpe

Plaintiffs appeal only from that part of the decision which dismisses the action against the town board as…