In an action for a declaratory judgment, judgment for plaintiffs, declaring that so much of the building zone ordinance of defendant as prescribes a minimum area restriction of two acres for buildings erected in its residence district is unconstitutional and void, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the law, with costs. In the light of the location and character of the village, it was within defendant's legislative province to determine, in the absence of proof of superior public need ( Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 390), that the two-acre restriction is justifiable as an elastic application of police power ( Simon v. Needham, 311 Mass. 560; Matter of Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 N.Y. 288; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra, pp. 387, 388; Matter of Fox Meadow Estates, Inc., v. Culley, 233 App. Div. 250, 251); nor is the restriction invalid with respect to the particular parcel owned by plaintiffs. They purchased for the purpose of resale with profit, with knowledge of the restriction. (Cf. People ex rel. Fordham Manor Ref. Church v. Walsh, 244 N.Y. 280, 288; Matter of Aberdeen Garage, Inc., v. Murdock, 257 App. Div. 645, 647, and Matter of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery v. Board of Appeals of Town of Greece, 271 App. Div. 33, 41.) They sold four of forty-eight acres for more than half the purchase price, and the remainder of their parcel, on their own showing, is worth as much or more than the sum paid for the entire parcel. The parcel is of the same quality as the average land in the village. Findings of fact No. 13 and Nos. 15 to 22 are reversed and conclusions of law Nos. 1 and 2 are disapproved. Defendant's proposed conclusions of law Nos. 1 to 4 are approved and made. Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [ 195 Misc. 875.]