McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay
66 N.Y.2d 544, 488 N.E.2d 1240, 498 N.Y.S.2d 128 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance defining "family" is facially unconstitutional under the New York State Constitution's due process clause if it restricts occupancy of single-family homes based on biological or legal relationships in a way that bears no reasonable relationship to legitimate governmental purposes and excludes households that are the functional equivalent of a natural family.
Facts:
- Robert and Joan McMinn purchased a four-bedroom house in a "D Residence" district in Massapequa, Town of Oyster Bay, in 1973.
- The Town of Oyster Bay zoning ordinance defined "family" as either any number of persons related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, or any two unrelated persons both aged 62 or over living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit.
- On June 1, 1976, the McMinns leased their house to four unrelated young men, between the ages of 22 and 25.
- Shortly after the tenants moved in, a criminal information was filed against the McMinns in District Court, Nassau County, charging them with violating the zoning ordinance because the house was occupied by more than one "family" as defined by the ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Robert and Joan McMinn and their tenants) commenced an action against defendants (Town of Oyster Bay, Town Council, supervisor, and building inspector) in the Supreme Court (trial court) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Supreme Court concluded that the age requirement for two unrelated individuals violated the State constitutional guarantee of equal protection and that the ordinance violated Executive Law § 296 (5) regarding marital status, but found the ordinance otherwise valid.
- On cross appeals, the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court) modified the judgment, declaring that the challenged portion of the ordinance was facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the State Constitution insofar as it prohibited occupancy by persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, but constitutional insofar as it limited occupancy to a single housekeeping unit.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
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 town zoning ordinance that defines "family" restrictively, limiting occupancy of single-family homes to only persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or to only two unrelated persons both aged 62 or over, violate the due process clause of the New York State Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
Yes, the Town of Oyster Bay's zoning ordinance, through its restrictive definition of "family," on its face infringes upon the due process protections embodied in the New York State Constitution. While a zoning ordinance must pursue a legitimate governmental purpose and use means reasonably related to that end, restricting occupancy based on biological or legal relationships bears no reasonable relationship to goals like reducing parking/traffic problems, controlling population density, or preventing noise and disturbance; these goals depend on dwelling size and number of occupants, not their relationships. The ordinance's definition of family is both overinclusive (e.g., prohibiting a young unmarried couple in a four-bedroom house) and underinclusive (e.g., allowing 10-12 distantly related persons in a two-bedroom house). Although preserving the character of a single-family neighborhood is a legitimate objective, a municipality cannot achieve it by excluding households that are the "functional and factual equivalent of a natural family." The ordinance's only alternative definition for unrelated persons (two persons aged 62 or over) is overly restrictive in terms of both number and age, and thus, the entire definition of family violates the State Constitution's due process guarantee, as supported by prior state decisions in White Plains and Group House.
Concurring - Kaye, J.
Yes, the Town of Oyster Bay's zoning ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the State Constitution. Justice Kaye concurred to explain why the court reached the issue of facial invalidity (that the law is unconstitutional for everyone, not just as applied to the plaintiffs) even though the plaintiffs' specific living arrangement might not have been a "functional family." Normally, a litigant cannot challenge a statute on the grounds it might be unconstitutional for others if it is constitutional as applied to them. However, an exception applies here because the unconstitutional feature of the statute (the overrestrictive family definition) cannot be meaningfully separated from other applications and cannot be eliminated without effectively rewriting the statute. The court cannot determine what the legislature would have intended if it had foreseen the partial invalidity.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens protections under the New York State Constitution's due process clause against overly restrictive zoning ordinances. It clarifies that municipalities cannot arbitrarily define "family" based solely on biological or legal relationships if such definitions do not reasonably relate to legitimate governmental interests like density control or traffic. By requiring recognition of "functional families," the court limits a municipality's power to dictate who can live together, promoting diverse household compositions. This ruling establishes a higher bar for zoning regulations in New York than typically found under federal due process analysis, impacting future cases involving non-traditional households or group living arrangements.
