From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Torsoe Bros. v. Architecture Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1986
120 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 27, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Palella, J.).


Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of legislative enactments, we will treat the portion of the petition which seeks a declaration that chapter 2 of the Town Code of the Town of Orangetown is unconstitutional, as a declaratory judgment action and thereby dispose of the proceeding on the merits (see, Press v County of Monroe, 50 N.Y.2d 695, 702-703).

The challenged local law, chapter 2 of the Town Code of the Town of Orangetown (Local Laws, 1965, No. 2, of Town of Orangetown), delegates to the respondent Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review (hereinafter ACABOR) powers which Town Law § 274-a authorizes the town board to vest, by either zoning ordinance or local law, in the planning board. Under the 1976 amendment to Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (L 1976, ch 365), the conflict between the challenged law and the Town Law does not render the local law invalid, as it is well settled that this amendment permits the town board to enact local laws superseding the Town Law on matters related to zoning (see, Matter of Sherman v Frazier, 84 A.D.2d 401; North Bay Assoc. v Hope, 116 A.D.2d 704).

The petitioner's further contention, that Local Law No. 2 is invalid because it fails to provide meaningful standards to guide ACABOR in the exercise of its discretion, is without merit. As legislative acts, local laws pertaining to zoning matters are invested with a strong presumption of constitutionality (see, Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Upper Brookville, 51 N.Y.2d 338, 344, cert denied 450 U.S. 1042), and the standards provided in §§ 2-1 and 2-5 of the challenged law, though stated in general terms, "are capable of reasonable application and are sufficient to limit and define the board's discretionary powers" (Matter of Aloe v Dassler, 278 App. Div. 975, affd 303 N.Y. 878). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Torsoe Bros. v. Architecture Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1986
120 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Torsoe Bros. v. Architecture Comm

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TORSOE BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 27, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Town of Islip v. Zalak

However, in light of our determination with respect to Islip Town Code chapter 21, the determination of the…

Kamhi v. Town of Yorktown

A town can amend or supersede a provision of the Town Law only "in relation to which and to the extent to…