From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Village of Brockport v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2001
283 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Filed May 2, 2001.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J. — Declaratory Judgment.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following

Memorandum:

Plaintiff, the Village of Brockport (Village), commenced this action against defendants, the owners of residential properties in the Village, seeking, inter alia, an injunction directing defendants to cease and desist their alleged violations of certain zoning provisions of the Village Code. In their third affirmative defense, defendants allege that the limitation of occupancy of single-family residences based upon the definition of "family" in section 58-2 of the Code is illegal, discriminatory, void and unenforceable under the New York Constitution and laws of the State of New York and the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court properly concluded that the challenged section of the Code does not violate the New York Constitution ( see, Matter of Unification Theol. Seminary v. City of Poughkeepsie, 201 A.D.2d 484), the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15; see, McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay, 105 A.D.2d 46, 50, affd 66 N.Y.2d 544), or the United States Constitution ( see, Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1), and thus properly denied defendants' cross motion for judgment on the third affirmative defense. The court erred, however, in granting judgment to the Village dismissing the third affirmative defense rather than declaring the rights of the parties ( see, Pless v. Town of Royalton, 185 A.D.2d 659, 660, affd 81 N.Y.2d 1047; Matter of Builtland Partners v. LaLanne Biltmore Health Spa, 93 A.D.2d 727, 728). We modify the judgment, therefore, by vacating the provision dismissing the third affirmative defense and granting judgment in favor of the Village declaring that the definition of "family" in section 58-2 of the Village Code is not illegal, discriminatory, void or unenforceable under the New York Constitution and laws of the State of New York or the United States Constitution.


Summaries of

Village of Brockport v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 2, 2001
283 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Village of Brockport v. Webster

Case Details

Full title:VILLAGE OF BROCKPORT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT D. WEBSTER…

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

Date published: May 2, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Atlas Henrietta, LLC v. Town of Henrietta Zoning Bd. of Appeals

It is important to start by noting that the identical definition of "family" was upheld by the Fourth…

Atlas Henrietta, LLC v. Town of Henrietta Zoning Bd. of Appeals

It is important to start by noting that the identical definition of “family” was upheld by the Fourth…