[T] People v. Ventura5/6/2004
ials at the state and national levels do not begin to immediately address these issues. The proliferation of illegal multiple dwellings has spread to all parts of the community. While at one time illegal multiple dwellings existed in our industrial areas at the perimeters of the community or certain parts of the residential community where multiple dwellings were legally permissible, now they are everywhere. There are a great many communities faced with similar problems.
The proliferation of multiple dwellings was furthered by the New York Court of Appeals decision in McMinn, supra, where the Court refused to allow for the arbitrary limitations of the number of people who may live together, not related by blood. That decision told us that it is not the number of people living together that determines whether or not they are a family. Rather, it is how the people live that determines whether they are a family or not. For example, if they eat together as a family and do not have the residence cut up into separate, locked apartments, then they may be a single family unit and not be in violation of our single family dwelling laws.
So-called "mother/daughter" residences also do not offend our multiple dwelling laws since our aging population and economy may both require an amalgamation of living arrangements. However, the use of the residential neighborhoods for an illegal commercial purpose such as the storage of commercial vehicles or industrial supplies will not be tolerated. See People v. Bove, 156 Misc. 2d 469, 593 N.Y.S.2d 736 (1992); People v. Suppa, October 8, 1997, New York Law Journal at 1, 25 and 28, In Brief, Decisions of Interest and Anthony A. Miller, Zoning Case Spawns A Social Commentary, The Attorney of Nassau County, September, 1997 at 3 and People v. Bulzomi, Decisions of Interest, New York Law Journal, March 18, 2003 at 1, 17 and 21. Despite Defendant's False Trial Testimony, Court Declines Perjury Referral to District Attorney. The use of a residential neighborhood for commercial purposes destroys it faster than the gradual influx of illegal multiple dwellings. Consistent with the desire to preserve the pristine, residential character of our communities, Villages may pass local laws, but they have limitations on their powers. The State has given local municipalities the power to make certain laws. This is referred to as "home rule." It is particularly applicable to Villages in the case of Zoning and Building Code enforcement.
"Section 2 of Article 9 of the New York State Constitution directs the Legislature to pass legislation enabling local governments to enact laws that are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any general state law relating to the affairs of local government; these local laws are to concern the protection, order, conduct, safety, health and well-being of the people and property in the municipalities. NY Const. Art. 9, §2(c)(10); Albany Area Builders Ass'n v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (1989).
"Accordingly, the Legislature enacted the Municipal Home Rule Law, §10 of which provides the statutory authority and procedure for local governments to enact laws and to provide for their enforcement by fine, forfeiture, civil penalty or imprisonment. Mun. Home Rule Law §10(4)(b).
"Municipal Home Rule Law §10 also empowers local governments to authorize public servants to enforce local laws or ordinances relating to parking, licensing of occupations or businesses, fire prevention and safety, health and sanitation, and building, zoning and planning." Mun. Home Rule Law §10(4)(a); People v. Thompson, 157 Misc.2d 233; 596 N.Y.S.2d 330 (1993) N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 105, February 22, 1993, Decided,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|