Opinion · Nylaw New York

QUAGLIA v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEY PARK, 44 N.Y.2d 772 (1978)

LOUIS F. QUAGLIA et al., Respondents, v. Inc. Vill. OF MUNSEYPARK, Appellant., 406 N.Y.S.2d 30 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 1978)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1978-04-27
Topic: general

QUAGLIA v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEY PARK, 44 N.Y.2d 772 (1978) 406 N.Y.S.2d 30, 377 N.E.2d 473 LOUIS F. QUAGLIA et al., Respondents, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEYPARK, Appellant.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued March 30, 1978 Decided April 27, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ALBERT A. OPPIDO, J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed QUAGLIA v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEY PARK, 44 N.Y.2d 772 (1978). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

QUAGLIA v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEY PARK,44 N.Y.2d 772(1978)

406 N.Y.S.2d 30,377 N.E.2d 473

LOUIS F. QUAGLIA et al., Respondents, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUNSEY

PARK, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued March 30, 1978

Decided April 27, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department,Page 773ALBERT A. OPPIDO, J.Page 774

Fred A. Williamsfor appellant.Patrick J. RohanandMichael P. Sanchiricofor respondents.

MEMORANDUM.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, with costs in all courts. The village as a municipal body enacting laws or adopting ordinances or resolutions with respect to its public responsibilities may act only in furtherance of a public purpose. Despite a meticulous and byzantine delineation of resolutions, map changes, and transfers and retransfers of title over a 40-year period centered on a three-foot strip of land purportedly detached from a public street, no plausible public purpose is made apparent or even argued to be served. By the erection of a stone barrier in 1975 on this three-foot strip plaintiffs are purposelessly denied access from their residence to the abutting public street. Neither the law nor the courts may or should be used to serve such an act. When no public purpose is perceived to be served, an owner may not be denied access to a public street (seeRegan v Lanze,40 N.Y.2d 475,482-483; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed, 1966 rev vol], § 30.54; cf.Farrell v Rose,253 N.Y. 73,76).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.