Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp. 70 Misc. 2d 187

← Cases

Floyd v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

70 Misc. 2d 187 Court Supreme Court, New York County, Decision date 1972-05-30 English

Delivered by Samuel J. Silverman, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 187
Thomas Floyd, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Resident Property Owners and Taxpayers of the Village of Ossining, Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. New York State Urban Development Corporation et al., Defendants.
Supreme Court, New York County,
May 30,1972.
p. 188
Palmiston & Fiore {Andrew J. Fiore of counsel), for plaintiff. Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates (Samuel Gates, Robert J. Geniesse and Eldon V. C. Greenberg of counsel), and Louis J. Lefhowits, Attorney-General {Daniel M. Cohen of counsel), for New York State Urban Development Corporation, defendant.

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted to the extent of awarding judgment declaring that subdivision (3) of section 16 of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (L. 1968, eh. 174) is valid and constitutional insofar as it purports to exempt projects of the Urban Development Corp. from zoning laws and regulations and other local laws and regulations of cities, towns and villages of the State, and in particular of the Village of Ossining, (a) The act deals with matters of State concern and is thus not in violation of the home rule provisions of the State Constitution (Adler v. Deegan, 251 N. Y. 467 ; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]); (b) the act relates to matters exempted from the grant of zoning authority to municipalities under subdivision 4 of section 11 of the Statute of Local Governments (L. 1964, ch. 205; N. Y. Const., art. IX, § 3, subd. [a], par. [3]; art. XVIII, § 1); (c) State instrumentalities are inherently exempt from local zoning regulations.

Settle declaratory judgment with provision for severance as to all issues not covered by the foregoing decision.

Cases cited