City of White Plains v. Ferraioli
357 N.Y.S.2d 449, 34 N.Y.2d 300, 313 N.E.2d 756 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal zoning ordinance cannot define “family” so restrictively as to exclude a state-licensed group home that functions as a stable, permanent, and single-housekeeping family unit, even if the residents are not related by blood or adoption.
Facts:
- Abbott House, Inc. is a not-for-profit agency licensed by the State of New York to care for neglected and abandoned children.
- In 1971, New York State enacted legislation permitting licensed agencies like Abbott House to establish 'group homes' for 7 to 12 foster children, operating under strict state regulation in a simulated family atmosphere.
- Abbott House leased a house owned by the Ferraiolis in an R-2 single-family zone in the City of White Plains for use as a group home.
- The group home consisted of an adult married couple, the Seards, their two natural children, and 10 foster children (including seven siblings and three unrelated youngsters).
- The Seards were paid a salary to care for the children, and all household expenses were paid by Abbott House, with funding from the City of New York.
- The household was maintained as a single housekeeping unit with kitchen facilities, with the children and foster parents living together as if they were a biological family, with the intention of developing permanent ties in the community.
- The City of White Plains zoning ordinance defined 'family' as 'one or more persons limited to the spouse, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, sons, daughters, brothers or sisters of the owner or the tenant or of the owner’s spouse or tenant’s spouse living together as a single housekeeping unit with kitchen facilities.'
- The city contended that the group home was not a single-family use but either a philanthropic institution (requiring a special permit) or a boarding house (wholly excluded from an R-2 zone).
Procedural Posture:
- The City of White Plains initiated an action against Abbott House, Inc. and the Ferraiolis (owners of the house) in state trial court to enforce its zoning ordinance and enjoin the use of the house as a group home.
- The city obtained summary judgment against the defendants in the trial court.
- The city obtained summary judgment against the defendants in the intermediate appellate court.
- Abbott House, Inc. and the Ferraiolis, as defendants, appealed the lower courts' summary judgment rulings to the New York Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 'group home,' consisting of foster children and an adult couple, structured to resemble a traditional family unit, qualify as a 'single family' under a local zoning ordinance that defines family by blood or marital relations?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Breitel
Yes, a group home consisting of an adult couple and foster children, structured to resemble a family unit, qualifies as a single 'family' under the zoning ordinance. The court reasoned that the group home, despite lacking traditional biological or adoptive ties, functions as a single housekeeping unit and is, to all outward appearances, a relatively normal, stable, and permanent family unit. The purpose of the group home concept is to emulate a traditional family environment, ensuring permanency and community ties for the children, unlike transient groups (e.g., college students) or institutional arrangements. While zoning ordinances can properly restrict uses to stable, uncongested single-family environments, they cannot define 'family' so narrowly as to require only blood or formal adoption relationships when the household otherwise bears the generic character of a family unit. Zoning is meant to control types of housing and living, not the genetic or intimate internal relations of human beings.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for expanding the definition of 'family' in zoning law, moving beyond strict biological or legal relationships to a more functional understanding. It establishes that municipalities cannot use zoning to prohibit state-sanctioned, family-like group homes for foster children, thereby balancing local land-use control with state social welfare policies. The decision has influenced subsequent cases grappling with non-traditional household structures and challenges the traditional view of family in legal contexts, promoting inclusiveness and adapting zoning to evolving social needs.
