New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Spring Valley Gardens Associates v. Marrero

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 5, 1986 · Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., Concur

68 N.Y.2d 627; 496 N.E.2d 216; 505 N.Y.S.2d 57; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19024

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision. The 9 that cite it most often are listed here.

Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v. City of Kingston (N.Y. 2025)
Berry Estates, Inc. v. New York (2d Cir. 1987)
Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v. City of Kingston N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Hudson Shore v. State of New York (2d Cir. 2025)
Matter of PJB Equities, Inc. v. Village of Ossining (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Chadwick Gardens Assoc., LLC v. City of Newburgh (New York Supreme Court, Orange County 2024)
Executive Towers at Lido, LLC v. City of Long Beach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Kaplen v. Town of Haverstraw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Spring Valley Gardens Associates v. Berman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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 judgment appealed from and the Appellate Division order brought up for review should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice David T. Gibbons at the Appellate Division.

We note, however, that although it should generally be presumed that the Legislature has investigated and found sufficient facts to support the legislation, that presumption cannot be applied in a case such as this where the implementing legislation requires the local legislative body to first make a particular factual finding. In this case that finding was adequately made.

*630 Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.