Matter of 160 Dawn Assoc. v. Town Board of Islip, 69 N.Y.2d 90 (1986)
r
r
A town board may summarily abate a nuisance and compel a property owner to bear the cost of abatement without prior notice, provided the action is not arbitrary or capricious and gives the owner a reasonable time to comply considering the circumstances.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals upheld a resolution by the Town Board of Islip requiring 160 Dawn Associates to clear a large amount of burning debris from its property within 10 days. The Court found that the resolution was not arbitrary or capricious given the history of repeated fires, the continuous subsurface fire burning for nine months, and the Town’s prior attempts to compel clearance. The Court also held that the resolution was consistent with the Town Law and the Islip Town Code, which authorize the town to compel removal of debris and abate nuisances at the owner’s expense. The decision emphasizes the deference courts give to administrative actions addressing public safety concerns, especially when property owners have been aware of the problem for an extended period.
r
r
Facts
r
160 Dawn Associates owned property in Islip, New York, which contained a large amount of debris that had been repeatedly catching fire. A subsurface fire had been burning continuously on the property for nine months. The Town of Islip had made repeated demands to clear the property and had issued a resolution six months prior directing 160 Dawn Associates and its tenant to clear the property and extinguish the fire. When the property owner failed to comply, the Town Board issued a resolution requiring the clearance of 33,000 cubic yards of burning debris within 10 days.
r
r
Procedural History
r
160 Dawn Associates challenged the Town Board’s resolution in court, arguing that it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Appellate Division affirmed the Town Board’s resolution. 160 Dawn Associates appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Town Board of Islip’s resolution requiring 160 Dawn Associates to clear the burning debris within 10 days was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because given the history of the dispute, the repeated attempts to compel clearance of the property, and the threat to public safety posed by the conditions on the property, allowing the petitioner only 10 days to clear the lot was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals found that the Town Board’s resolution was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court cited Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., stating that an arbitrary action is