You are here: / / LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE OWNER DOES...
, , ,

LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE OWNER DOES NOT RESIDE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A REGULATORY TAKING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s constitutional attack on a Local Law which prohibited short-term rental of properties where the owner did not reside did not constitute a regulatory taking of the property:

In 2012, petitioner-plaintiff (plaintiff) purchased a single-family residence (subject premises) located in respondent-defendant Town of Grand Island (Town) for the purpose of renting it out on a short-term basis, i.e., for periods of less than 30 days. Plaintiff never resided at the subject premises. In 2015, the Town enacted Local Law 9 of 2015 (Local Law 9), which amended the Town Zoning Code to prohibit short-term rentals in certain zoning districts, except where the owner also resided on the premises. The Town enacted the law in response to significant adverse impacts to the community that it found were caused by permitting short-term rental of residential properties to occur. Local Law 9 contained a one-year amortization period—which could be extended up to three times upon application—during which preexisting short-term rental properties could cease operation. * * *

… [P]laintiff did not submit evidence establishing that, due to the prohibition under Local Law 9 on short-term rentals, the subject premises was not capable of producing a reasonable return on his investment or that it was not adaptable to other suitable private use. Instead, plaintiff’s submissions showed a “mere diminution in the value of the property, . . . [which] is insufficient to demonstrate a [regulatory] taking” … . Matter of Wallace v Town of Grand Is., 2020 NY Slip Op 03301, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Indictment Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Evidence Required Reversal
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDED A PARCEL OF LAND NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED AND SOUGHT A CORRECTED DEED; PURSUANT TO THE MERGER DOCTRINE, THE CONTRACT AND THE DEED MERGED AT THE CLOSING AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE DEED IS DEEMED TO REFLECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (ABSENT FRAUD OR AMBIGUITY IN THE DEED); PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED A TEENAGER WHO COMMITTED RACIALLY-MOTIVATED MASS MURDER WAS ADDICTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTING THE VIEW THAT WHITES ARE BEING REPLACED BY NON-WHITES; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE; OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE DEFENDANT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
Repugnant Verdict Required Reversal
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR REPLACING THE STAIRS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE, PLAINTIFF HAD PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAIRS AND COULD PROCEED WITH THE SUIT.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT.
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).

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

ALTHOUGH THE PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS WAS AUTHORIZED AND LEGAL, THE... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER, SHOULD NOT HAVE...