From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson Perkins Company v. Martin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 4, 1963
190 N.E.2d 422 (N.Y. 1963)

Summary

finding that ordinance which solely benefitted mobile home courts to detriment of owners of adjacent land, and adopted not in accordance with comprehensive plan is spot zoning

Summary of this case from Bennett v. City Council for Las Cruces

Opinion

Argued February 21, 1963

Decided April 4, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, DANIEL J. O'MARA, J.

T. Carl Nixon and Frederick W. McNabb, Jr., for appellant.

Richard C. Mitchell for respondents.

Avery B. Robinson and Francis D. McCurn for Village of Newark, amicus curiae.


Judgment reversed and that of the Supreme Court, Wayne County, reinstated except as to the stricken provision for money damages as alternative relief, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. We agree for reversal for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division except that in so concurring we make no determination as to the legality or illegality of the present maintenance in the village of individual trailers not in trailer camps and except, also, that we do not decide whether or not there are other lawful ways in which the village board may legislate as to trailer camps, including the present camps and locations. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, FOSTER and SCILEPPI.


Summaries of

Jackson Perkins Company v. Martin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 4, 1963
190 N.E.2d 422 (N.Y. 1963)

finding that ordinance which solely benefitted mobile home courts to detriment of owners of adjacent land, and adopted not in accordance with comprehensive plan is spot zoning

Summary of this case from Bennett v. City Council for Las Cruces
Case details for

Jackson Perkins Company v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:JACKSON AND PERKINS COMPANY, Appellant, v. CONSTANTINE B. MARTIN et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 4, 1963

Citations

190 N.E.2d 422 (N.Y. 1963)
190 N.E.2d 422
240 N.Y.S.2d 29

Citing Cases

Matter of Augenblick v. Town of Cortlandt

that the Constitution requires that all land in similar circumstances be treated alike ( Schmidt v Board of…

Walus v. Millington

A comprehensive plan is not necessarily a written document. ( Jackson Perkins Co. v. Martin, 16 A.D.2d 1,…