Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon

307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517 (1954)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon

New York Court of Appeals
307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517 (1954)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Vernon Park Realty, Inc. (Vernon Park) purchased the plaza, which was a lot situated between two train stations and surrounded by business buildings in the highly developed business district in the city of Mount Vernon (defendant). The plaza had been historically used by patrons of the railroad and others as a parking lot for private automobiles. The plaza was zoned in the business district until the city adopted the 1927 zoning ordinance, which placed the plaza in a residential district but permitted it to continue to be used as a parking lot as a valid nonconforming use. Vernon Park applied for a variance to permit the erection of a retail shopping center but was denied because such use was prohibited under the 1927 ordinance. Vernon Park brought suit, seeking injunctive relief and a judgment declaring the 1927 ordinance unconstitutional, unreasonable, and void, and that the ordinance was not binding on Vernon Park’s use of the plaza. In January 1952, the city council subsequently amended the zoning ordinance and added a new designated parking district, which prohibited the use of the plaza for any purpose except parking and storing automobiles. In response, Vernon Park amended its complaint to include an attack on the 1952 ordinance as well. Vernon Park alleged that the 1927 ordinance and its 1952 amendment were invalid pertaining to Vernon Park’s property and void because they imposed an undue hardship as to use and reduced the value of the property. The city justified the ordinances as a response to existing heavy-traffic concerns in the city. The district court found the ordinance and amendment invalid, and the city appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dye, J.)

Dissent (Fuld, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership