Case law

Hughes v. Zoning Board of Appeals

191 A.D.2d 784 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 4, 1993

Petitioner obtained final site plan approval from the Village’s Planning Board and approval from the Village’s Historic Commission. … It is axiomatic that "[a] zoning board determination should not be set aside unless there is a showing of illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of discretion” (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444 ; see, Conley v Town of

Lotten v. Board of Fire Commissioners

262 A.D.2d 563 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1999

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Fire Commissioners of Terryville Fire District, dated August 28, 1997, which suspended the petitioner for a period of 15 days, without … Council, 35 Misc 2d 685 ; Matter of Gardner v Ward, 199 NYS2d 953 ).

Allen v. Zoning Board of Appeals

8 A.D.3d 810 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2004

Niefer, 297 AD2d 410 [2002]; Matter of North Shore Equities v Fritts, 81 AD2d 985 [1981]). … Denison, 203 AD2d 642 [1994]; Matter of North Shore Equities v Fritts, supra).

Carlstein v. Zoning Board of Appeals

71 A.D.2d 768 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 26, 1979

Such a delegation, however, *769 must be accompanied by standards to be followed by the board (Marshall v Village of Wappingers Falls, 28 AD2d 542 ). No such standards exist in the instant ordinance. … Consequently, the zoning board of appeals lacked the authority to issue a special permit (Dur-Bar Realty Co. v City of Utica, 57 AD2d 51, 55-56 ).

2 Park Avenue Associates v. Cross & Brown Co.

43 A.D.2d 37 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 1973

(Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v. 40th And 3rd Corp., 25 A D 2d 114, 124.) And such has been the rationale of prior holdings. In a cognate case, our brother Steuer, while at Special Term, in Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. … In Meyer v. Stein ( 161 Misc. 91 [Sup. Ct., N. Y. County, 1935, Dore, J.], affd. 247 App.

Young v. Board of Zoning Appeals

35 A.D.2d 430 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1970

Fulling v. … Those principles have been extended by us to all regulations of allowable dimensions of land (Matter of Emmenegger v. Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Garden City, 33 A D 2d 393, 395).

Cale Development Co. v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

94 A.D.2d 229 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1983

it functions is entitled to the greatest weight.” (.Matter of Herzog v Joy, 74 AD2d 372, 375 ; see Hotel Armstrong u Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 11 AD2d 395 ; see, also, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 … (Laurino v Hewman, 10 AD2d 725 , citing Poel v Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. of N. Y., 216 NY 310, 322; Heyn v New York Life Ins. Co., 192 NY 1 .)

Sweeting v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

83 A.D.2d 103 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1981

This reading of the legislative intent is consistent with Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp. ( 44 NY2d 290 , supra) and *110 Haimes v New York Tel. Co. ( 46 NY2d 132 ). … Board of Standards & Appeals]).

Cattaraugus County Department of Social Services v. Brown

176 A.D.2d 1205 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 4, 1991

Michel, 93 AD2d 997 ; see also, Augustine v Tandle, 47 AD2d 710 ). … Lewis L., 119 AD2d 209 ; Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph W., 108 AD2d 1038 ; see also, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of County of Erie v Michel, supra; cf., Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., supra), and we remit the

Brooks Drugs, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

51 A.D.3d 1094 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2008

Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 188 [1998]). … the credibility question created by the appraisers’ conflicting opinions, we conclude that the petitions were properly dismissed (see Matter of Eckerd Corp. v Gilchrist, 44 AD3d at 1240-1241; see also Matter of Lia v Town

Taylor Tree, Inc. v. Planning Board

272 A.D.2d 336 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2000

Goldblatt, 9 NY2d 101 , affd 369 US 590 ; Town Bd. v 1320 Entertainment, 236 AD2d 387 ). … The reasonable time restrictions imposed were not arbitrary and capricious (see, Town Bd. v 1320 Entertainment, supra). The petitioner’s remaining contention lacks merit. Ritter, J. P., Joy, S. Miller and H.

Bartholomay v. Zoning Board of Appeals

70 A.D.2d 784 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1979

Special Term did not reach the merits but determined that the zoning board lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the board had not notified at least 25 owners of property adjacent to the rezoned parcel as required by … On the rehearing there should also be proof on the issue of self-created hardship (see, generally, Clark v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 301 NY 86, 89 ; Matter of Kenyon v Quinones, 43 AD2d 125 ).

McDermott v. Town Board of Patterson

33 A.D.3d 703 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 2006

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Town Board of the Town of Patterson dated December 14, 2005, which, upon remittal from this Court by decision and judgment dated

Flacke v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board

77 A.D.2d 66 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 1980

Appellant argues that the holdings expanding standing in Matter of Fritz v Huntington Hosp. ( 39 NY2d 339 ), Matter of Dairylea Coop, v Walkley ( 38 NY2d 6 ) and Boryszewski v Brydges ( 37 NY2d 361 ) require a finding that … Standing has been denied, to public officials in situations similar to the one in which the Commissioner now finds himself (Board of Educ. v Town of Islip, 15 AD2d 789 ; Matter of City of New York v New York Univ., 3 AD2d

Novak v. Planning Board of LaGrange

136 A.D.2d 610 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 19, 1988

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of LaGrange (hereinafter the board), dated April 18, 1984, which denied the petitioner’s application for … Accordingly, the board was justified in disapproving the petitioner’s application in view of the uncertainty of access across the State lands (see, Panariello v Demetri, 99 AD2d 770 ).

Randall v. Board of Higher Education

78 A.D.2d 516 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 1980

In its cross claim against IMSG, the board alleges an indemnification clause in the contract between the board and IMSG whereby IMSG agreed to hold the board harmless against injuries and damages "whether due to the negligence … (Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 42 NY2d 153, 161 ), which has been held not to be a violation of this statute (see, also, Gross v Sweet, 49 NY2d 102, 108 ).

Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals

200 A.D.2d 570 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 1994

In the absence of any determination denying an application for a building permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals has no power to grant a variance (see, Matter of Moriarty v Planning Bd., 119 AD2d 188 ). … Rather, approval of a subdivision plat is a function within the province of the local planning board (see, Matter of Moriarty v Planning Bd., supra).

Blake v. Planning Board of Philipstown

21 A.D.3d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 8, 2005

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Planning Board’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304 [2002]; Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva … , 89 NY2d 411 [1996]; Matter of Savetsky v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Southampton, 5 AD3d 779 [2004]; Matter of Laidlaw Waste Sys. v Planning Bd. of Town of Islip, 305 AD2d 413 [2003]).

Brown v. Estate of Terry

77 A.D.3d 1050 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 2010

Viewing this evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to defendants as the nonmoving parties (see Lynch v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. … Repairs, Inc. v Uretsky, 39 AD 3d 675, 677 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 979 [2007]; Spilky v Bernard H. La Lone, Jr., P.C., 227 AD2d 741, 743 [1996]).

Tuxedo Conservation & Taxpayers Ass'n v. Town Board

69 A.D.2d 320 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1979

In March, 1977 the town board delegated to the planning board the authority to hold environmental impact hearings. In mid-1977, the planning board issued a notice of hearing as to Sterling One. … One of the most recent is that of Cardinale v Golinello ( 43 NY2d 288 ).