Stokes v. Town of Eamapo, 26 N.Y.2d 132 (1970)

A zoning ordinance is valid if there is substantial compliance with statutory requirements, even if there are minor technical deficiencies in recording the ordinance, provided that the public is not prejudiced and the ordinance’s text is not in dispute.

Summary

Stokes challenged the validity of a Town of Eamapo zoning ordinance, alleging the town failed to properly record it. The Town Board had adopted the ordinance, published it, and posted it as required by Town Law § 264, but the Town Clerk did not promptly physically incorporate it into the town’s “ordinance book”. The New York Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was valid because the town had substantially complied with the statutory requirements. The court reasoned that the clerk’s omission was a minor technicality and did not invalidate the ordinance, because the text was publicly available and there was no resulting prejudice to the plaintiff.

Facts

Stokes owned land in the Town of Eamapo and sought approval for two subdivision plans. The Town Planning Board denied reapproval, citing conflict with the town’s amended zoning ordinance of December 29, 1966. Stokes then sued, arguing the amending ordinance was invalid because the Town Board failed to properly record it in the minutes. Specifically, Stokes alleged that the board “failed to make an entry in the Minutes of the Town Board or incorporate and affix a copy of the Ordinance and Zoning Map into the Minutes of the Town Board”. The ordinance was adopted by majority vote, published in newspapers, and posted, but it wasn’t physically placed in the town’s ordinance book until after October 23, 1967.

Procedural History

Stokes moved for summary judgment, arguing for the invalidity of the ordinance. Special Term denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, granting Stokes the relief sought and declaring the amended ordinance invalid. The Town of Eamapo appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a zoning ordinance is invalid if the Town Board adopted, published, and posted the ordinance as required by Town Law § 264, but the Town Clerk did not promptly physically incorporate it into the town’s “ordinance book”.

Holding

No, because substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for enacting a zoning ordinance is sufficient, and the Town Clerk’s failure to promptly place the ordinance in the “ordinance book” was a mere technicality that did not invalidate the ordinance, especially where the text was publicly available and there was no prejudice to the plaintiff.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that Town Law § 264 requires that the zoning ordinance be “entered” in the “minutes of the town board,” published in a newspaper, and posted on the signboard. Town Law § 30 requires the Town Clerk to enter a copy of every ordinance in the “ordinance book.” The court reasoned that entry in the “minutes” under § 264 is distinct from entry in the “ordinance book” under § 30. The failure of the Town Clerk to promptly record the ordinance in the “ordinance book” should be considered a personal neglect by the clerk and not invalidate the action of the Town Board, unless there is resulting uncertainty or prejudice. The court found no factual dispute that the ordinance was in written form and available in the clerk’s office. The court noted, “It would be sheer exaltation of form over substance to strike down an ordinance enacted within the legal jurisdiction of a legislative body, the text of which is not in dispute, which has been publicly on file and duly published and posted, merely because a clerk omitted physically to staple a copy promptly in the ordinance book which she must keep.” The court distinguished cases where the ordinance was not on file, boundaries were not designated, or the map was not posted. The court found that in this case, the published and posted texts could be compared with the text in the clerk’s official file, establishing the ordinance’s authenticity. The court concluded that the town achieved substantial compliance with the statute.