Legal Opinion

Dauernheim, Inc. v. Town Board of Hempstead

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 28, 1974PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

In this action plaintiff originally sought a change of zone from a residential to a business use for 4.271 acres of a larger tract of approximately 17 acres owned by it. Its application was denied. The property is, and, since 1930, has been zoned for residential use. In its complaint plaintiff alleges that the area in which the property is situated has become business and commercial in nature and the land is unfit for residential use. It is also alleged that the present zoning use is an invasion of plaintiff’s legal and constitutional right to own and put the property to its highest and best…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. Rodgers v. Village of TarrytownNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  3. Matter of Wulfsohn v. BurdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  4. Weintraub v. WeintraubNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. Walus v. MillingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates v. Town of BedfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Maldini v. AmbroNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Town of East HamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  5. Kravetz v. PlengeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API