## Facts

- Daniel A. Udell owned two parcels on opposite sides of Lakeville Road in the Village of Lake Success, located in a narrow “neck” area near Northern Boulevard that had long been predominantly zoned for business uses.
- Before 1960, the parcels were zoned Business “A” and “B,” permitting commercial uses; one parcel had been used commercially (including as a restaurant).
- On June 21, 1960, an associate submitted a preliminary sketch to develop the western parcel for a bowling alley and supermarket.
- That same evening, the Village planning board recommended rezoning both parcels from business to Residence “C,” citing traffic concerns.
- The Village adopted Ordinance No. 60, reclassifying Udell’s parcels from business to residential.
- The change caused a major reduction in the property’s value (approximately a 75% loss).
- At trial, the Village’s expert acknowledged prior recommendations supporting commercial or manufacturing zoning for the eastern parcel’s area and differentiated traffic impacts between the two parcels.
- The trial court held the western parcel’s residential rezoning unconstitutional and confiscatory but upheld residential rezoning for the eastern parcel.
- The Appellate Division affirmed; a dissent argued there was no basis to treat the parcels differently.
- During the appeal, the Village rezoned the western parcel back to business and withdrew its appeal, leaving only the eastern parcel’s residential classification in dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning of Udell’s property from business to Residence “C” was ultra vires for failure to be enacted in accordance with a statutorily required comprehensive (well-considered) plan.
2. Whether the downzoning of the eastern parcel was arbitrary, discriminatory, or confiscatory, given the severe loss in value and the treatment of similarly situated nearby property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and modified the judgment in Udell’s favor as to the eastern parcel.
- The court held Ordinance No. 60 invalid as applied to Udell’s land.
- The court concluded the amendment did not satisfy the statutory comprehensive plan requirement and amounted to unjustifiable discrimination because the Village offered no principled reason to single out Udell’s property for residential zoning in an area otherwise conceded to be unsuitable for residential-only classification.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning changes must be made in accordance with a comprehensive (well-considered) plan; ad hoc action aimed at blocking a particular proposed use is ultra vires.
- Zoning must serve the welfare of the community as a whole and be based on deliberate planning rather than immediate political reaction.
- A rezoning that imposes a severe, targeted burden—especially a dramatic loss in value—without a rational, plan-based distinction from similarly situated property may be invalid as unjustifiable discrimination.
- Courts scrutinize downzoning where the asserted public objectives (such as traffic control) are not supported by coherent planning or consistent treatment of comparable parcels.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals invalidated the Village’s residential downzoning of Udell’s eastern parcel because it was not grounded in a comprehensive plan and improperly singled out Udell’s property for disparate treatment, producing a severe loss in value without a valid, plan-based justification.


Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463 (1968)