McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay

New York Court of Appeals · 1985 · Property

PropertyZoningDue ProcessDefinition of Familysingle-family zoningfamily definitionpolice powerdue process

Facts

Oyster Bay's zoning ordinance permitted single-family houses in a residential district and defined "family" as either any number of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or any two unrelated persons both at least 62 years old living together as a single nonprofit housekeeping unit. The McMinns owned a four-bedroom house in that district and leased it to four unrelated men in their early twenties. After the Town filed a criminal information charging a zoning violation, the owners and tenants brought this action seeking a declaration that the ordinance was invalid and an injunction against enforcement. The court focused on whether the ordinance could restrict occupancy in single-family houses by using that definition of family.

Issue

May a municipality, consistent with the due process clause of the New York Constitution, define "family" in a single-family zoning ordinance as any number of related persons or only two unrelated persons who are both at least 62 years old, thereby excluding other unrelated households from single-family homes? More broadly, is that definition reasonably related to the Town's legitimate zoning objectives?

Rule

For a zoning ordinance to be a valid exercise of the police power, it must (1) further a legitimate governmental purpose and (2) bear a reasonable relation to that purpose. A municipality may pursue preservation of single-family neighborhood character, but it may not do so by defining family so narrowly that it excludes a household which is, in every but a biological sense, a single family; if a household is the functional and factual equivalent of a natural family, it cannot be excluded from a single-family neighborhood consistent with due process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Albany permits single-family homes in a residential district. Its ordinance defines family as any number of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or no more than two unrelated adults living as a housekeeping unit. Nina Torres rents her five-bedroom house to four unrelated elementary-school teachers who share expenses, cook together, and plan to remain for several years.

Under the New York due process analysis from the majority opinion, which argument gives Nina the strongest basis to invalidate the ordinance facially?

Explanation. The majority accepted that preserving neighborhood character and addressing traffic, density, and noise are legitimate objectives. But it held due process is violated when the means chosen are not reasonably related to those ends. A kinship-based definition is overinclusive and underinclusive because the relevant concerns turn on number of occupants, size of dwelling and lot, and actual living arrangement, not kinship. It is especially defective if it excludes households that are the functional and factual equivalent of a natural family. (Derived from McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bay (1985).)