Case law

Haberman v. Zoning Board of Appeals

85 A.D.3d 915 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 2011

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach dated December 29, 2003, which revoked a building permit previously issued to the petitioners … Duff, Inc. v ASMAC, LLC, 61 AD3d 828 [2009]; Columbus Constr. Co., Inc. v Petrillo Bldrs. Supply Corp., 20 AD3d 383 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.

Schaeffer v. Zoning Board of Appeals

142 A.D.2d 848 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 1988

Petitioner thus applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the town for a use variance. Following several hearings on the matter, the Board denied the application. … However, under the recent decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York ( 71 NY2d 274, 279 ), it is clear that estoppel cannot be invoked against a zoning board where "reasonable diligence

Traitel Marble Co. v. Brown Bros.

142 N.Y.S. 1148 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 11, 1913

Brown v. German Rock Asphalt Co.

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

All concur, except Davis, J., who dissents, upon the authority of Hayman v. City of New York ( 163 App. Div. 195 ); Merwin v. City of Utica (172 id. 51), and Wensley v. City of New York (173 id. 248 ).

Bellomo v. Board of Assessment Review

185 A.D.2d 574 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 23, 1992

contend that the change in their 1988 assessment was the result of a partial revaluation in violation of State statute (see, RPTL 305 [2]) and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (see, Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v … Webster County, 488 US 336 ), and that the Assessor disregarded the depreciation factor tables published by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment.

Corbett v. Zoning Board of Appeals

283 A.D. 282 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 5, 1954

(See Matter of Calcagno v. *285 Town Bd. of Webster, 265 App. Div. 687 , affd. 291 N. Y. 701 , and Matter of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery v. Board of Appeals, Greece, 271 App. Div. 33 .) … Board of Appeals, Greece, 271 App. Div. 33 ; Matter of Ernst v. Board of Appeals on Zoning of City of New Rochelle, 274 App. Div. 809 , affd. 298 N. Y. 831 , and Matter of Rotitzek Investing Co. v. Murdock, 296 N.

John John, LLC v. Planning Board

15 A.D.3d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 14, 2005

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven dated November 13, 2002, and December 12, 2002, which, inter alia, granted site plan approval for the … The “ ‘proximity’ allegations in the amended petition were sufficient to establish standing” prima facie (Williams v Hertzwig, 251 AD2d 655, 656 [1998]; see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town

Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Brown

122 N.Y.S. 1147 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 22, 1910

Brown v. City of New York

80 N.Y.S. 1131 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 23, 1903

Rossi v. Town Board of Ballston

49 A.D.3d 1138 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 2008

Matter of Baumgarten v Town Bd. of Town of Northampton, 35 AD3d 1081 [2006]; Matter of Boyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d 688, 690 [2000]; Matter of Save Our Forest Action Coalition v City of Kingston, 246 AD2d … Co. v City of New York, 39 NY2d 587, 596 [1976]; see Interlaken Homeowners’ Assn. v City of Saratoga Springs, 267 AD2d 842, 845 [1999]).

Carlton v. Zoning Board of Appeals

111 A.D.2d 169 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 1985

Matters apparent on the face of the record may be examined for the first time on appeal (see, Brown v Heacock, 9 How Prac 345). … Accordingly, the board’s determination was properly sustained by Special Term (see, Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 NY2d 438 ).

Bout v. Zoning Board of Appeals

71 A.D.3d 1014 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 23, 2010

Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). … Corona Realty Holdings, LLC v Town of N.

Nu-Life Construction Corp. v. Board of Review of the Board of Education

161 A.D.2d 765 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 29, 1990

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Review of the Board of Education of the City of New York dated July 20, 1987, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner in default … Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ; CPLR 7803 [4]).

Kay v. Board of Higher Education

260 A.D. 912 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 13, 1940

Thomas v. Zoning Board of Appeals

104 A.D.3d 1218 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 2013

Iwan v. Zoning Board of Appeals

252 A.D.2d 913 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 1998

Corp. v Klein, 58 AD2d 751 , appeal dismissed 42 NY2d 1012 ; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 25.31, at 354 [3d ed]; cf., Matter of Filangeri v Pulichene, 229 AD2d 702 ). … We are reminded that “public policy is to restrict nonconforming uses in order to eliminate them” (Verstandig’s Florist v Board of Appeals, 229 AD2d 851, 852 ).

Nye v. Zoning Board of Appeals

81 A.D.3d 1455 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 2011

In determining whether to grant the second area variance, respondent was required to consider the five factors set forth in *1456 Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 … , 40 AD3d 767, 768 [2007]; Matter of Miller v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E.

Pilato v. Zoning Board of Appeals

155 A.D.2d 864 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1989

Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028 ; Matter of Gernatt Gravel Prods. v Town of Collins, 105 AD2d 1057, 1059 ). … Co., v Lillis, 124 AD2d 996, 997 ; see also, Neddermeyer v Town of Ontario Planning Bd., 155 AD2d 908 [decided herewith]; Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals, 30 NY2d 238, 243 ).

Brown v. City of New York

117 A.D. 901 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1907

was a crowd upon the sidewalk, or that anything distracted his attention, or prevented him from seeing the obstruction, whatever it was, and under such circumstances the case seems to be controlled by the case of Whalen v. … The same principle was applied in Strutt v. Brooklyn & R. B. R. R. Co. ( 18 App. Div. 184 ) and in Dubois v. City of Kingston (102 N.

Tharp v. Zoning Board of Appeals

138 A.D.2d 906 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 31, 1988

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Brown, J.), entered April 21, 1987 in Saratoga County, which granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent … Hardship is self-created where the applicant for a variance acquired the property subject to the restrictions from which he seeks relief (see, Matter of Romanelli v Bonvouloir, 102 AD2d 872 ).