Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's motion is granted and the four affirmative defenses asserted by the defendants are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendants; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendants in this case seek to avoid compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of New Hyde Park by claiming that the ordinance was never properly enacted into law. This claim is based on the fact that the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Hyde Park, held March 6, 1928, do not indicate which Trustees, if any, voted to adopt the proposed ordinance. However, the minutes of that meeting do include a notation that the zoning report was read, and the former Village Attorney, Marcus Christ, submitted an affidavit based on personal knowledge, attesting to the fact that as of March 6, 1928, all of the Village Trustees were in favor of adoption of the ordinance. Moreover, any conceivable irregularity which might have existed with respect to the adoption of this ordinance, or of similar village zoning ordinances, has been cured by subsequent legislative enactment (see, L 1984, ch 721).
We therefore conclude that the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss those affirmative defenses asserted by the defendants which were based upon the supposed invalidity of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of New Hyde Park. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.