## Facts

- Brian Novie owned residential property in the Village of Montebello and removed trees from his land.
- The Village charged Novie with violating Tree Law §§ 176-6(A)(1) and 176-7(C), which required Village authorization to remove certain trees and imposed related fees and obligations.
- In 2010, Novie entered a civil compromise regarding an earlier incident, paid $250, and agreed to follow proper procedures for future tree removal or property improvements.
- In 2011, the People filed an amended information alleging Novie again removed trees without complying with the Tree Law.
- Novie moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument, arguing the ordinance violated substantive due process (burdensome fees and permission requirement) and equal protection (application based on purchase date).

## Issues

1. Whether Tree Law §§ 176-6(A)(1) and 176-7(C) violate substantive due process by requiring permits and regulatory fees for tree removal on private property.
2. Whether the Tree Law violates equal protection by distinguishing between owners based on whether they acquired property before or after the ordinance’s enactment.
3. Whether the challenged provisions are unconstitutional on their face or as applied so as to require dismissal of the accusatory instrument.

## Decision

- The Appellate Term reversed the Justice Court order that had dismissed the accusatory instrument on constitutional grounds.
- The court denied Novie’s motion to dismiss, holding Tree Law §§ 176-6(A)(1) and 176-7(C) were constitutional.
- The prosecution for the alleged Tree Law violations was permitted to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Municipalities may regulate land use and environmental conditions under the police power, including through tree-preservation measures tied to environmental and aesthetic objectives.
- Substantive due process challenges to land-use ordinances are evaluated under deferential review; permit schemes and reasonable administrative or consultant fees are generally valid if rationally related to legitimate governmental purposes and not shown to be arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory.
- Equal protection challenges to non-suspect classifications in land-use regulation are reviewed under rational basis; temporal distinctions (including grandfathering or phased implementation) may be upheld if rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- A challenger bears a heavy burden to establish unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt; the existence of permitting costs and procedural requirements, without more, does not establish facial or as-applied invalidity.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Term held that Montebello’s tree-removal permitting and fee requirements were a rational exercise of municipal police power and did not violate substantive due process or equal protection, so dismissal of the charges was improper.


People v. Novie, 976 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Term 2013)