Rorie v. Woodmere Academy, 49 N.Y.2d 782 (1980)
A summer program run by a private school is a permitted school use under zoning ordinances if it maintains a substantial educational component, even if it includes recreational activities.
Summary
Neighboring property owners sued to enjoin Woodmere Academy’s summer program, arguing it was an impermissible day camp rather than a school use under the zoning ordinance and constituted a nuisance. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, finding the program a permitted use. The Appellate Division reversed, deeming the academic aspect de minimis, but remitted for a hearing on abandonment of prior nonconforming use. After a second trial court dismissed the complaint based on nonconforming use, the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals held the summer program was a permitted use under the zoning ordinance because it maintained a substantial educational component, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, but modifying the grounds for dismissal.
Facts
Woodmere Academy, a private school, operated a summer program on its premises. Neighboring property owners, the Rories, sought to enjoin the summer program, arguing it was a day camp, not a permitted school use under the Town of Hempstead zoning ordinance. The summer program offered courses in science, music, drama, art, photography, reading, cooking, woodworking, and swimming. All courses except swimming were also offered during the regular school year. The program employed professionally trained teachers, including graduate medical students and college students serving as counselors. The academy had no swimming pool prior to the reinstitution of the summer day program in 1978.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs (Rories) brought an action in Supreme Court, Nassau County, to enjoin the Academy’s summer program. The Supreme Court (Justice Altimari) dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and remitted for a hearing on the issue of abandonment of nonconforming use. On remittal, the Supreme Court (Justice Farley) dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Academy had the right to conduct a summer day camp as a legal nonconforming use. The Appellate Division affirmed Justice Farley’s judgment. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Woodmere Academy’s summer program constitutes a permitted “private school” use under the Town of Hempstead zoning ordinance, or an impermissible “day camp” use in a Residence A district.
Holding
Yes, because the summer program maintains a substantial educational component, demonstrating a good faith effort by the private school to accomplish serious educational aims, and is not simply a recreational program in disguise.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence and found that the summer program offered a curriculum including courses that were also part of the regular school curriculum. The court noted that the summer program employed qualified teachers and used the same plant as the regular school program. The court stated, “What is essential is that the educational component of the program, the staff and the plant be of sufficient size to warrant the conclusion that the program involves a good faith effort on the part of the private school to accomplish serious educational aims and is not simply a fun and games recreational program in disguise.” The court distinguished cases relied upon by the plaintiffs. The court emphasized that the ordinance did not require that a private school be devoted solely to academic instruction. The Court found the educational component of the program, including textbooks, student evaluations, and expert testimony, demonstrated that the summer program was a serious organized program, not just a leisure activity. The court concluded that the weight of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the program was a permitted use.