Church v. Town of Islip
New York Court of Appeals
8 N.Y.2d 254, 203 N.Y.S.2d 866, 168 N.E.2d 680 (1960)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In 1954, the town of Islip (the town) and the town board of Islip (the board) (defendants) consented to a zoning change from residential to business for Charles Housler’s (defendant) corner lot on the busy Bay Shore Road and Udall’s Road. At the time, the town did not have a comprehensive plan in place. The board’s action was unanimous, finding that all of Bay Shore Road would eventually be zoned for business and Housler’s property was more desirable for business than residential use. The board required Housler to agree to execute and record restrictive covenants concerning a maximum building size, to erect a six-foot fence, and to plant shrubbery to grow to the height of the fence before carrying out any retail business on the property. John Church and other neighboring property owners (plaintiffs) brought a declaratory-judgment suit against the town, the board, and Housler to have the 1954 zoning amendment declared unconstitutional and voided. Church and the other property owners argued that the zoning change was not in conformity with a comprehensive plan, that it was passed arbitrarily despite a contrary recommendation by the town planning board, and that it was illegal contract zoning. The trial was before an official referee. The referee found for Church and the other property owners because the neighborhood was almost entirely residential, there were several vacant stores in a nearby business section a block away from the property, there was no need shown for rezoning Housler’s lot for business, and the change was illegal spot zoning and contracting zoning. The town, the board, and Housler appealed. The appellate division reversed the lower court’s judgment, finding that the amendment was a valid statutory change by the town’s legislative body and that community-growth pressures and public interest justified the zoning change.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Desmond, C.J.)
Dissent (Froessel, 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.