Case law

Celentano v. Board of Zoning Appeals

63 A.D.3d 1156 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 2009

, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). … Filangeri v Foster, 257 AD2d 895, 897 [1999]; Matter of Riklis v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 243 AD2d 482 [1997]).

Sterngass v. Town Board of Clarkstown

10 A.D.3d 402 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 9, 2004

Contr. v Town of Ramapo, 280 AD2d 667 [2001]; Town Bd. of Town of New Castle v Meehan, 226 AD2d 702, 703 [1996]; Holzmacher, McClendon & Murrell v Town of E. Hampton, 204 AD2d 604 [1994]). … Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra).

Paden v. Planning Board of Mamakating

270 A.D.2d 626 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 9, 2000

Petitioners challenge a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating granting respondent J.M.L. … of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 247-248 , affd 59 NY2d 849 ).

Lazarus v. Board of Education

73 A.D.2d 662 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 24, 1979

Salesian Soc. v Village of Ellenville, 41 NY2d 521 ). … Flanagan v Board of Educ., 47 NY2d 613 ).

Munson v. Seneca County

114 A.D.2d 582 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 1985

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 23, 1984, as amended by decision filed October 31, 1984. … month payable to the * * * hospital, in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the board.”

BROWN, DAVID A., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 10, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID A. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. JOHN E. TYO, SHORTSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. … BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered July 8, 2009.

Barker's Stores v. Board of Review

74 A.D.2d 994 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 28, 1980

Corp. v City of Binghamton, 61 AD2d 1108 ). … Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 538 ).

Acme Blacktop Paving Corp. v. Brown & Matthews, Inc.

30 A.D.2d 1042 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 31, 1968

(Cummings v. Morris, 25 N. Y. 625, 627 .) … If the assignment in its present form does not correctly express the intention of the parties, plaintiff may seek reformation of the instrument. (6 N Y Jur., Reformation of Instruments, § 41; Brandwein v. Provident Mut.

Margaritis v. Zoning Board of Appeals

32 A.D.3d 855 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 12, 2006

health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted” (Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307 [2002]; see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608 [2004 … Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances (see Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 769 [2004] ; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals

Dressman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

91 A.D.2d 1147 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 1983

Inasmuch as the board’s decision was rendered in its administrative capacity rather than its appellate capacity, a direct appeal to this court, pursuant to section 624 of the Labor Law, does not lie. Mahoney, P.

Board of Education v. Van Zandt

204 A.D. 856 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1922

State Board of Pharmacy v. Gasau

118 A.D. 909 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1907

Besthoff v. Zoning Board of Appeals

34 A.D.2d 782 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 1970

In this proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, to annul the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals’ determination, dated February 7, 1969, which granted respondent Wyman’s application for an extension of a nonconforming … The respondent Zoning Board of Appeals found that the subject property had acquired a nonconforming use for 62 dwelling units. In our opinion there was no substantial evidence to support such a finding.

Caldor, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

142 A.D.2d 57 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 23, 1988

Mall v Condon, 36 NY2d 544, 548 ; Matter of Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co. v McDonald, 126 AD2d 29, 34 , mot to dismiss appeal granted 70 NY2d 693). … . * Respondents and Supreme Court rely principally on O’Brien v Reff ( 52 AD2d 1031 ).

BROWN, DANA P., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DANA P. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. THOMAS E. … BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. GERALD L. STOUT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H.

McWilliams v. Board of Education

52 A.D.2d 552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 20, 1976

State Board of Pharmacy v. Rupp

130 A.D. 901 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 15, 1909

Auser v. Town Board of Newcastle

149 N.Y.S. 1069 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 16, 1914

Mendozza v. Board of Zoning Appeals

30 A.D.2d 863 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 22, 1968

Scott v. Zoning Board of Appeals

88 A.D.2d 767 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1982

As such, it is tantamount to a legislative finding that the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and that it will not adversely affect the neighborhood (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc … Corp. v Gibson, 73 AD2d 1050 , affd 53 NY2d 813 ). Additionally, Special Term properly fountj that the permit could not be issued subject to a time limitation.