Legal Opinion
Lubelle v. Rochester Preservation Board
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 1990PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff failed to establish that the city’s landmark restrictions either deprived him of "economically viable use of his property” or failed to "substantially advance legitimate State *976interests” (Seawall Assocs. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 92, 107, cert denied sub nom. Wilkerson v Seawall Assocs., — US — , 110 S Ct 500). Plaintiff did not present “dollars and cents” proof that the property would not be capable of producing a reasonable return under the landmark regulations (see, de St. Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 77; Spears v Berle, 48 NY2d 254, 263), but relied instead on evidence that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Andrus v. AllardSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Seawall Associates v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Honore de St. Aubin v. FlackeNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Spears v. BerleNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matter of Wallace v. Town of Grand Is.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Matter of Campaign for Buffalo History Architecture & Culture, Inc. v. City of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018