Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre
Cases that cite this one
60 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Offen v. County Council for Prince George's County (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993)
- Matter of Jeter v. Poole (N.Y. 2024)
- Alfano v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Property Developer, Inc. v. Swiatek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Cifone v. Aiello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Magee v. Rocco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- IKB Intl., S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Casey v. Town of Arietta Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v. Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Calverton Manor, LLC v. Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of McMillan v. Town of New Castle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Kenny v. Fiala (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Scism v. Fiala (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Scism v. Fiala (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven (N.Y. 2013)
- Golden Horizon Terryville Corp. v. Prusinowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Logiudice v. Southold Town Board of Trustees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Jamaica Recycling Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Meteor Enterprises, LLC v. Scott Bylewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Trifaro v. Town of Colonie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Orsi v. Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Evans v. Town of Greenfield Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- D'Agostino Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Vecchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Ronsvalle v. Totman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Paintball Sports, Inc. v. Pierpont (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.
In anticipation of forthcoming amendments to chapter 104 of the Village Code, a local law governing display signs, respondents imposed a partial moratorium on the issuance of sign permits. Subsequently, petitioner applied for permission to construct a roof sign, the plans for which satisfied the requirements of chapter 104 as it then existed. Respondents having failed to act on the application for six weeks, petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding seeking, among other relief, a declaration that the moratorium was invalid and an order directing respondents to issue the permit. Prior to entry of judgment, the amendment to chapter 104 became effective, under which petitioner’s proposed roof sign would not be permitted. Accepting petitioner’s argument that the amended law should not apply, Special Term directed the permit to issue. The Appellate Division reversed, perceiving no exception to the general rule that the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered on appeal is controlling (99 AD2d 754), and we affirm that conclusion.
Absent here is the degree of detrimental reliance found in Matter of Temkin v Karagheuzoff (34 NY2d 324) or the extensive delays indicative of bad faith present in Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf (40 NY2d 769) which could preclude reliance by respondents on the new law (see also, Matter of Faymor Dev. Co. v Board of Stds. & Appeals, 45 NY2d 560). Petitioner does not dispute the power of the village to impose a moratorium of this type, but challenges the procedure employed in its adoption. We do not reach the issue of validity of the enactment procedure because, under the circumstances of this case, even a defect in *923 the procedure, without more, would not oblige a court to apply a law which has been superseded (compare, Matter of Temkin v Karagheuzoff, 34 NY2d 324, supra).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.