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
Causes of Action Not in Notice of Claim Dismissed.
THE INSURER’S ACCEPTANCE OF PREMIUM PAYMENTS AFTER IT LEARNED OF THE MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAIVED THE INSURER’S RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S WAIVER OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 8 PROCEEDING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER THE RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (THEREBY AFFORDING THE COURT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY LED TO AN EXPLOSION; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS SUFFICIENTLY CONTROLLED OR SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SUCH THAT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY, AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE THEORIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Reversible Error to Allow Prosecutor to Question Defendant About His Post-Arrest Silence

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

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