You are here: / / TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE...

TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a local town code provision (called a Holdback Provision) was not authorized by the Town Law and was therefore unenforceable. The town code provision authorized the town to hold back on issuing building permits in plaintiff builder’s subdivision until certain required infrastructure components (roads, lights, etc.) were completed:

Towns and municipal governments lack inherent power to enact zoning or land use regulations … . “They exercise such authority solely by legislative grant” … . Through the enactment of Town Law article 16, the New York State Legislature has conferred upon municipalities a wide variety of powers “to zone the town into districts to regulate its growth and development, to establish procedures for adoption and modification of local zoning regulations, to review and enforce zoning decisions and to establish an official map”… . Town Law § 277(9) is the enabling statute which authorizes the Town to obtain enumerated forms of security sufficient to cover the full cost of infrastructure and other required improvements in case a developer fails to finish work. …

Here, a plain reading of Town Law § 277 establishes that (1) it has no express provision authorizing the Lot Holdback Provision set forth Town Code § 254-18B, (2) pursuant to the rules of statutory construction, the express provisions of Town Law § 277 must be construed to exclude provisions such as those in Town Code § 254-18B which are not contained in § 277 … , and (3) it has no provision from which the Lot Holdback Provision of Town Code § 254-18B can be implied … . Thus, Town Code § 254-18B is inconsistent with the plain language of Town Law § 277(9), which expressly sets forth the manner in which a developer can be required to provide financial security to ensure the completion of the installation of required infrastructure and other mandatory improvements.

When a town or municipality acts without legislative delegation, its acts are ultra vires and void ab initio … . Joy Bldrs., Inc. v Town of Clarkstown, 2018 NY Slip Op 07110, Second Dept 10-24-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))/TOWN CODE  (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))/TOWN LAW  (TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY THIRD WERE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY SECOND; CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY SECOND COUNTS REQUIRED VACATION OF THE CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY THIRD COUNTS AND THE RELATED SENTENCES (SECOND DEPT).
PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THE ISSUE SURVIVES THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
WILLFULNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, MOTHER’S MOTION TO FIND FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS CONCERNING CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DISCHARGED A PATIENT WITH A HISTORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA BUT NO HISTORY OF THREATENING OR ASSAULTING PEOPLE; THE PATIENT ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF, THE CAB DRIVER PAID BY THE HOSPITAL TO TAKE THE PATIENT HOME; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
SENTENCE WHICH INCLUDED BOTH JAIL TIME AND PROBATION FOR VIOLATION OF A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IS ILLEGAL; AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE IS APPEALABLE WITHOUT PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED,... AN ACCOUNTING WAS REQUIRED IN THIS PARTITION ACTION BETWEEN JOINT TENANTS WITH...