# Block 496 Construction Corp. v. Board of Estimate

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · February 11, 1991 · 170 A.D.2d 505

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5933790

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Block 496 Construction Corp. v. Board of Estimate of the City of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** February 11, 1991
- **Citations:** 170 A.D.2d 505; 566 N.Y.S.2d 533; 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2022
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5933790

## Opinion text

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review (1) so much of a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York dated January 10, 1989, as upon granting the petitioners’ application for a special permit to operate an eating and drinking establishment with certain entertainment, imposed restrictions on the hours of entertainment and required that a security guard be posted outside of the premises, and (2) a resolution of the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated March 9, 1989, which "disapproved” the prior determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals, and in effect denied the petitioners’ permit application, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated September 5, 1989, which, inter alia, annulled the resolution of the Board of Estimate dated March 9, 1989, and, upon reinstating the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals, deleted the restrictions on the hours of entertainment and the condition with regard to the posting of a security guard.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Sangiorgio in the Supreme Court. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5933790. Public record. Not legal advice.