Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although the Supreme Court erred in dismissing, on ripeness grounds, the plaintiff's challenge to the facial validity of the building moratorium enacted by the defendant Village of Irvington, we nevertheless conclude that the plaintiff's constitutional argument is substantively lacking in merit (see, e.g., Beacon Hill Farm Assocs. v Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, 875 F.2d 1081, 1083; Martino v Santa Clara Val. Water Dist., 703 F.2d 1141, 1146-1147, cert denied 464 U.S. 847). Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the enactment of the moratorium upon certain development within the defendant Village represented a constitutional exercise of the defendant's police powers under the circumstances presented (see, e.g., Matter of Charles v Diamond, 41 N.Y.2d 318; Matter of Belle Harbor Realty Corp. v Kerr, 35 N.Y.2d 507, 512). The moratorium constituted "`a reasonable measure designed to temporarily halt development while the [Village] considered comprehensive zoning changes and was therefore a valid stopgap or interim measure'" (Noghery v Acampora, 152 A.D.2d 660, quoting from Matter of Dune Assocs. v Anderson, 119 A.D.2d 574, 575; Matter of McDonald's Corp. v Village of Elmsford, 156 A.D.2d 687, 689; cf., Matter of Lakeview Apts. v Town of Stanford, 108 A.D.2d 914). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.