Charles v. Diamond
New York Court of Appeals
41 N.Y.2d 318, 392 N.Y.S.2d 594, 360 N.E.2d 1295 (1977)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
William Charles (plaintiff) owned land in the Village of Camillus (the village) (defendant) and planned to construct three apartment buildings on his property. The village authorized the issuance of a building permit and required that the buildings had to comply with a zoning ordinance that all buildings intended for human use be connected to the village sewage system. However, the State Department of Environmental Conservation informed Charles that he could not connect to the village sewage system until the village undertook a program to correct deficiencies of their sewage system. The village did not correct the deficiencies. Charles commenced an article 78 proceeding against the State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation (the commissioner), the village, and others (defendants), arguing that their actions were arbitrary and capricious and resulted in an unconstitutional taking of Charles’s property without compensation. Charles sought a judgment directing the commissioner to approve the village connection to his property and require the village to take the necessary steps for him to use the sewers. Charles also sought damages or $100,000 if the sewers were not approved and he was not permitted to construct the apartments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jasen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.