Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Town Of East Hampton

Facts

D adopted and filed with the State of New York a local zoning law, officially known as Local Law No. 17 of 1996 to restrict the establishment of very large retail stores within East Hampton outside of the Central Business zone. The Superstore Law provides, inter alia, that a building used for a supermarket may not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area and that parking for supermarkets shall be located primarily to the sides or rear of the building. This law prevented P from proceeding with its proposal to develop a 33,878 square foot supermarket at a site formerly occupied by a department store. The proposed site is in a Neighborhood Business zone. P sued D seeking a declaratory judgment that D's passage of the Superstore Law was beyond its legislative authority and that the law itself violates the New York and federal constitutions in that it denies P due process and equal protection, and interferes with interstate commerce. P also asserts that the law violates 42 U.S.C. §1983 and is an illegal restraint of trade under New York law. D moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A third party environmental organization (the Group) moved to intervene. The Group actively supported the Superstore Law, and its members provided extensive testimony during public hearings as well as providing commentary on area planning statements relevant to the law. The Group has also submitted affidavits from some of its members who live near the proposed site of the A&P supermarket, averring that the rural and residential character of the area will be changed to the detriment of their property values. The Group has filed a proposed answer and proposed memoranda of law in support of its proposed motion to dismiss P's complaint. P objects to the Group's intervention in this action.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.