Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 25, 20091 Volume 3\ No.6 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />hood;" and "the detriment caused by the property owner." The court () <br />emphasized that reasonableness of the amortization period also depend- <br />ed on "the length of the amortization period in relation to the investment <br />and the nature of the use" (i.e., the greater the investment, the greater the <br />amortization period). Typically, said the court, a reasonable amortization <br />period would allow a property owner time to recoup enough of his in- <br />vestment so that he did not have a substantial loss. <br />In the case at hand, the court held that it could not issue summary <br />judgment as to whether the Ordinance was reasonable and thus cqnsti- <br />tutional as applied to Suffolk. This was because the court found an issue <br />of fact existed as to the amount that Suffolk actually invested in its busi- <br />ness. The court found that Suffolk had "failed to submit any evidence as <br />to the amount that it actually invested ... ." <br /> <br />See also: Village of Valatie v. Smith, 83 N. Y2d 396, 610 N. YS.2d 941, <br />632 NE2d 1264 (1994). <br /> <br />See also: Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 N.Y.2d 553,176 N.YS.2d 598, <br />152 N.E.2d 42 (1958). . <br /> <br />Case Note: Suffolk had also contended that the short amortization <br />period set foith in the Ordinance was "unconstitutional on its face." () <br />The court held that if the Ordinance was constitutional in its appli- <br />cation to Suffolk, that contention would fail. <br /> <br /> <br />i <br />\. ) <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />42 <br /> <br />. i <br />