You are here: / / The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance...
, ,

The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance Which Prohibited the Operation of a Landfill Did Not Require the Striking Down of a Subsequent Health and Safety Regulation Which Had the Same Effect

The Fourth Department determined that the striking down (by the Court of Appeals) of a 2005 retroactive zoning ordinance which prohibited the continued use of petitioner’s property as a landfill did not require the striking down of a 2007 health and safety regulation which had the same effect.  Because the two regulations are different in nature, the collateral estoppel doctrine is not available:

…[W]e agree with defendants that collateral estoppel does not apply here. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party’ ” … . The doctrine “applies only if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . Here, the issue in this case—the legality of the 2007 Law as applied to plaintiffs—was neither raised by the parties nor decided by the Court of Appeals in Jones I. The issue before the Court of Appeals in Jones I was whether the 2005 Law was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs, i.e., whether the 2005 Law extinguished plaintiffs’ legal use of their land for the purpose of operating a C & D landfill on the entire parcel (see Jones I, 15 NY3d at 145-146). The Court of Appeals held that “the zoning ordinance at issue in this case [i.e., the 2005 Law], which restricted the development of landfills, does not apply to plaintiffs because they acquired a vested right to use their 50-acre parcel as a landfill for construction and demolition debris before the enactment of the zoning law” (id. at 142 [emphasis added]).

Although the 2005 Law and the 2007 Law both regulate landfill operations, they are not identical. The 2005 Law amended the Zoning Law to eliminate sanitary and demolition landfills as a permitted use in the AR-1 zoning district. The 2007 Law did not amend the Zoning Law to eliminate landfills in a particular zoning district but, rather, it enacted a Town-wide ban on solid waste management facilities. In concluding that the 2005 Law did not apply to plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals relied upon its [prior] decisions… . Those cases involve the nonconforming use doctrine, which shields vested property rights from the retroactive effect of zoning ordinances… .

The 2007 Law, however, is a health and safety regulation, not a retroactive zoning ordinance … . Unlike the 2005 Law, the 2007 Law does not “regulate[] the location of certain facilities within particular zoning districts” but, rather, it “generally regulat[es] the operation of [solid waste management] facilities in the interest of public safety and welfare” … . It is well established that “a municipality has the authority, pursuant to its police powers, to impose conditions of operation . . . upon preexisting nonconforming uses to protect public safety and welfare” (id.) and “may even eliminate [a] nonconforming use provided that termination is accomplished in a reasonable fashion” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2014 NY Slip Op 07780, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE TOWN HIRED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A VACANT HOUSE, THE TOWN WAS NOT AN OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER.
THE APPEAL WAIVERS WERE NOT EXECUTED UNTIL SENTENCING AND WERE THEREFORE INVALID; ARGUMENTS ABOUT A LATE FILED OMNIBUS MOTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS DID NOT SURVIVE THE GUILTY PLEAS (FOURTH DEPT).
GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Against Owner Properly Dismissed—Owner Did Not Exercise Supervisory Control Over Plaintiff’s Work
PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT’S DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF CROSS-COUNTY COACH’S TERMINATION WITH STUDENTS WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING AND FALLING ON A LANDING WET FROM RAIN AT THE TWELFTH HOLE OF DEFENDANT GOLF COURSE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Petition by the District Attorney Against the Sentencing Judge Seeking Vacation... Statements Made by Defendant to Physician In Presence of Police Investigator...