58 Queens Boulevard Food Corp. v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

58 Queens Boulevard Food Corp. v. Board of Estimate

84 A.D.2d 565, 443 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15645

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 565 (58 Queens Boulevard Food Corp. v. Board of Estimate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

58 Queens Boulevard Food Corp. v. Board of Estimate, 84 A.D.2d 565, 443 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant Board of Estimate of the City of New York, disapproving the determination of the- Board of Standards and Appeals which granted a variance with respect to premises leased by petitioner, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 23, 1981, which annulled the determination of said appellant and reinstated the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination of the Board of Estimate is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits. The Board of Estimate properly concluded that there was a lack of substantial evidence before the Board of Standards and Appeals to comply with subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 72-21 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York. As to subdivision (a), there was no demonstration of “unique physical [566]*566conditions * * * inherent in the particular zoning lot” (see Matter of Galin v Board of Estimate of City of N. Y., 72 AD2d 114, 116, affd 52 NY2d 869). As to subdivision (b), there was a lack of sufficient specificity of “dollar and cents” proof of inability to realize a reasonable return from permitted uses. Damiani, J.P., Gulotta, Margett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant Board of Estimate of the City of New York, disapproving the determination of the- Board of Standards and Appeals which granted a variance with respect to premises leased by petitioner, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 23, 1981, which annulled the determination of said appellant and reinstated the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination of the Board of Estimate is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits. The Board of Estimate properly concluded that there was a lack of substantial evidence before the Board of Standards and Appeals to comply with subdivisions (a) and (b) of section 72-21 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York. As to subdivision (a), there was no demonstration of “unique physical [566]*566conditions * * * inherent in the particular zoning lot” (see Matter of Galin v Board of Estimate of City of N. Y., 72 AD2d 114, 116, affd 52 NY2d 869). As to subdivision (b), there was a lack of sufficient specificity of “dollar and cents” proof of inability to realize a reasonable return from permitted uses. Damiani, J.P., Gulotta, Margett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 565, 443 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/58-queens-boulevard-food-corp-v-board-of-estimate-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack