1. Whether Mamaroneck's Local Law 6 constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments since it rezoned plaintiff's property as an exclusively recreational zone and barred any residential development.

2. In ascertaining whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred, what standard should apply to review the sufficiency of the relationship between interest and purpose.

1. No. Local Law 6 does not effect an unconstitutional taking because it substantially advances the expressed interests of the town.

2. Courts should apply the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 255 (1980), whether the law at issue substantially advances legitimate state interests.

Plaintiff's plan to develop its golf course property, including construction of residential lots, was thwarted when defendant town rezoned the land as a "recreation zone," thus, earmarking it solely for recreational use.

In Plaintiff's action contesting the constitutionality of the rezoning law, both parties moved for summary judgment. The supreme court awarded partial summary judgment to Defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed the supreme court's grant of partial summary judgment to Defendant, but, on a later motion, reversed the lower court's denial of Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision granting summary judgment to Defendant on all causes of action, finding that Local Law 6 does not effect an unconstitutional regulatory taking. Following the United States Supreme Court, the Court stated that the law must substantially advance legitimate state interests to avoid fatal constitutional infirmities. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 US 255, 260 (1980). The Court of Appeals also adopted the United States Supreme Court's clarification of this standard, to the effect that if the law bears a reasonable relation to the expressed government interests, it serves to substantially advance those goals. City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999).

The Court noted that the standard of review for a case involving an exaction, as opposed to a denial of development as is at issue here, would differ. In such cases, the Agins standard should not apply and instead, courts should require an "essential nexus" between the property interest exacted from the owner and the legitimate governmental objective. Dolan v. Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 388-90; see also Nollan v. California Coastal Commn., 483 US 825. Further, that "essential nexus" should be in "rough proportionality" between the exaction and the governmental interest. Dolan, 512 US at 391.

The Court held that the rezoning of Plaintiff's property through Local Law 6 as a recreation zone bore a reasonable relationship to the legitimate interests of the town: preserving open space, maintaining recreation areas for the community and mitigating flooding. The law therefore substantially advanced those interests and did not effect an unconstitutional regulatory taking.