You are here: / / THE LOCAL LAW REQUIRING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED...
,

THE LOCAL LAW REQUIRING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AS “HISTORIC” IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a local law requiring permits for changes to buildings designated “historic” was not unconstitutional. The local law, the “Historic Building Preservation Law,” gave the town’s Historic Building Preservation Commission (HBPC) the power to approve or disapprove proposed alterations to historic buildings which were identified as such in a “Survey:”

“Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality . . . [and] parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute’s invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt” … . “The exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality applies . . . to ordinances of municipalities” … . The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee due process protections for life, liberty, and property (see US Const Amends V, XIV). “The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property” … .

… Here, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to identify any constitutionally protected property interest that was implicated in the enactment of the 2017 local law and, thus, the petitioners/plaintiffs were not entitled to a hearing prior to the enactment of that law … . Contrary to the petitioners/plaintiffs’ contention, the 2017 local law did not require property owners to submit to warrantless searches of their properties in order to challenge a property’s classification or inclusion on the Survey. Matter of Santomero v Town of Bedford, 2022 NY Slip Op 02552, Second Dept 4-20-22

​Practice Point: A local law which designates certain buildings as “historic” and requires permits for alterations to the historic buildings is not unconstitutional.

 

You might also like
Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement
BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS.
A SINGLE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND CONVICTION FOUR YEARS BEFORE DID NOT SUPPORT A TEN POINT ASSESSMENT FOR UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT; RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT SEX OFFENDER WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS BEHAVIOR, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING HIS BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RELEASE WITH STRICT SUPERVISION, AS OPPOSED TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ROBBERY FIRST REDUCED TO ROBBERY SECOND BECAUSE A THREAT TO USE A GUN IS NOT “DISPLAY” OF A GUN; “POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT” COUNTS VACATED BECAUSE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE GRANTED FATHER’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ATTORNEY’S FEES) WITHOUT AFFORDING MOTHER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD; THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S MOTION AFTER DECIDING TO GRANT MOTHER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REVERSED (SECOND 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

CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS... THE DOCUMENT LABELED A “SUPPLEMENTAL” BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS ACTUALLY...