Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher
New York Court of Appeals
278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.2d 587 (1938)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Arverne Bay Construction Co. (Arverne) (plaintiff) owned a vacant lot north of Linden Boulevard in Brooklyn. Until 1928, the lot was in a district that was an unrestricted zone under New York City’s (defendant) zoning resolution. The district was largely undeveloped, and there had been no building construction for many years. However, after 1928, an amendment to the ordinance changed the district to a residential zone. This prohibited Arverne from using the lot as a gas station. Arverne claimed that the ordinance imposed an unnecessary hardship because its property could not be used properly or profitably in a residential zone. Arverne’s property was located near a city-operated incinerator and a sewage drain, which both emitted strong odors and fumes that made the property unsuitable for residential use. Arverne appealed and sought a variance to permit it to use the property for a gasoline station. The application was denied and sustained on appeal. In 1936, Arverne sued, arguing that the restrictions of the zoning ordinance were unconstitutional because they deprived Arverne of its property without due process of law, and sought a variance permitting for the gasoline station. The district court found in favor of Arverne that the ordinance was invalid, but the city appealed, and the court of appeals found in favor of the city. Arverne appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lehman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
