Alscot Investing Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Rockville Centre, 64 N.Y.2d 921 (1985)
Generally, a court must apply the law as it exists at the time the appellate decision is rendered, unless the applicant demonstrates detrimental reliance on the prior law or the municipality acted in bad faith.
Summary
Alscot Investing Corp. sought a permit to build a roof sign that complied with the existing Village Code. While the application was pending, the Village imposed a moratorium on sign permits in anticipation of amending the Code. The Code was subsequently amended to prohibit the proposed sign. Alscot sued, arguing the amended law should not apply. The lower court agreed, but the Appellate Division reversed, applying the law as it existed at the time of the appeal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the amended law controlled because Alscot failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance or bad faith on the part of the Village.
Facts
Alscot Investing Corp. applied for a permit to construct a roof sign that met the requirements of Chapter 104 of the Village Code as it existed at the time.
Prior to Alscot’s application, the Village imposed a partial moratorium on the issuance of sign permits in anticipation of amending Chapter 104.
After six weeks without a decision, Alscot commenced an Article 78 proceeding, arguing the moratorium was invalid and seeking an order to compel the Village to issue the permit.
Before the court rendered a judgment, the Village amended Chapter 104 to prohibit the type of roof sign Alscot proposed.
Procedural History
Special Term ruled in favor of Alscot, directing the permit to be issued under the old law.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the law in effect at the time of the appellate decision was controlling. (99 AD2d 754)
Alscot appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division properly applied the amended Village Code, which became effective after the permit application but before the appellate decision, to deny Alscot’s permit application.
Holding
Yes, because the general rule is that a court must apply the law as it exists at the time the decision is rendered on appeal, and Alscot did not demonstrate detrimental reliance or bad faith on the part of the Village that would warrant an exception to this rule.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision based on the general rule that the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered on appeal is controlling. The court emphasized two exceptions to this rule: detrimental reliance on the prior law and bad faith on the part of the municipality. Citing Matter of Temkin v Karagheuzoff (34 NY2d 324) and Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf (40 NY2d 769), the court distinguished the present case, finding no evidence of detrimental reliance or extensive delays indicative of bad faith.
The court acknowledged Alscot’s challenge to the enactment procedure of the moratorium but declined to address the validity of the procedure. Even if there was a defect in the procedure, the court stated,