Opinion
August 25, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Zoning enactments have a strong presumption of constitutionality, and while such presumption may be rebutted, unconstitutionality must be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, Clearwater Holding v. Town of Hempstead, 237 A.D.2d 400; Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Town of E. Hampton, 82 A.D.2d 551). The plaintiff failed to meet that burden.
In 1994 the Town of Mamaroneck adopted Local Laws, 1994, No. 6, which rezoned an area of the Town as a Recreational District. The plaintiff, whose property falls within the rezoned area, contends that the law is unconstitutional. The record, however, demonstrates that an essential nexus exists between Local Laws, 1994, No. 6 and the legitimate governmental interests of, inter alia, preserving open space and preventing the risk of additional flooding and other related adverse environmental effects ( see, Matter of Grogan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 A.D.2d 441; cf., Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Commn., 483 U.S. 825; Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 84 N.Y.2d 385, cert denied 514 U.S. 1109). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion was properly denied and the defendants' cross motion was properly granted.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit or are academic in light of our determination.
Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.