Stewart Hill LLC v. Town of New Windsor - Zoning Moratorium Dispute

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's decision exempting Stewart Hill LLC's site plan application from a local development moratorium. The decision clarifies the application of Local Law No. 1 of 2020 regarding SEQRA review prior to the moratorium's introduction.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed a lower court's judgment that effectively exempted Stewart Hill LLC's site plan application from the Town of New Windsor's Local Law No. 1 of 2020, which imposed a development moratorium. The court found that the plaintiffs' site plan application, having undergone SEQRA review with a negative declaration prior to the introduction of the local law, met the exception criteria outlined in the law.

This decision provides clarity on the interpretation of zoning moratoriums and their exceptions, particularly concerning projects that have completed environmental review. While this is a specific case resolution, it reinforces the importance of SEQRA compliance and the potential for existing review processes to exempt projects from subsequent development restrictions. Regulated entities involved in land use and development should review the specific language of local laws and their own project's environmental review status in light of this decision.

What to do next

Review the decision in Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC v. Town of New Windsor for interpretation of local law exceptions to development moratoriums.
Ensure all site plan applications clearly document completion of required environmental reviews (e.g., SEQRA) prior to the introduction of any relevant local ordinances.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC v. Town of New Windsor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01366
Docket Number: Index No. 7769/20
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC v Town of New Windsor (2026 NY Slip Op 01366)
| Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC v Town of New Windsor |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01366 |
| Decided on March 11, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 11, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
2021-04718
(Index No. 7769/20)

*[1]In the Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC, et al., respondents,

Town of New Windsor, et al., appellants.**

Drake Loeb PLLC, New Windsor, NY (Alana R. Bartley and Stephen J. Gaba of counsel), for appellants.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany, NY (Robert S. Rosborough IV, Anna V. Pinchuk, and William S. Nolan of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Local Law No. 1 of 2020 of the Town of New Windsor is invalid, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Maria S. Vasquez-Doles, J.), dated May 26, 2021. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, in effect, granted the petition to the extent of directing that the site plan application of the plaintiffs/petitioners is exempt from a moratorium imposed by Local Law No. 1 of 2020.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs/petitioners (hereinafter the plaintiffs) submitted a site plan application to the Town of New Windsor Planning Board to develop a business park containing offices and warehouse space on 120 acres of vacant land. In November 2019, the Town's Planning Board adopted a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (hereinafter SEQRA) regarding the project. In February 2020, the Town Board of the Town enacted Local Law No. 1 of 2020, which established a moratorium on development approvals in the Town, with certain exceptions, including an exception for "[a]pproval of a subdivision application that has undergone SEQRA review to the extent that a negative declaration has been issued or a positive findings statement has been adopted from a final environmental impact statement prior to the date this Local Law is introduced."

The plaintiffs commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Local Law No. 1 of 2020 is invalid. In a judgment dated May 26, 2021, the Supreme Court, among other things, in effect, granted the petition to the extent of directing that the plaintiffs' site plan application is exempt from the moratorium imposed by Local Law No. 1 of 2020. The defendants/respondents appeal.

"In the field of moratoria, it is well settled that the enactment of a moratorium upon certain land use or development within a municipality will be considered a valid stopgap or interim measure where it is reasonably designed to temporarily halt development while the municipality [2]considers, *inter alia, comprehensive zoning changes" (Cellular Tel. Co. v Village of Tarrytown, 209 AD2d 57, 66; see Matter of Laurel Realty, LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Kent, 40 AD3d 857, 860). "An exercise of police power which interferes with the enjoyment of property must be a reasonable, necessary, and limited response directed at redressing a genuine crisis or emergency" (Cellular Telephone Co., 209 AD2d at 66).

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the moratorium failed to comply with the foregoing standards (see id.). There was no rational basis for the moratorium to contain an exception for subdivision applications that had received negative declarations pursuant to SEQRA while not exempting other types of applications that had received negative declarations pursuant to SEQRA. Accordingly, the court properly directed that the plaintiffs' site plan application is exempt from the moratorium imposed by Local Law No. 1 of 2020.

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, CHRISTOPHER and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court