620 Broadway Housing Corp. v. City Planning Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

620 Broadway Housing Corp. v. City Planning Commission

12 A.D.3d 215, 783 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 215 (620 Broadway Housing Corp. v. City Planning Commission) 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

620 Broadway Housing Corp. v. City Planning Commission, 12 A.D.3d 215, 783 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which denied petitioners’ application to annul respondent City Planning Commission’s (CPC) determination granting respondent developer a special use permit and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb CPC’s finding that the single expression of interest received by the developer in response to its efforts to rent the space for a permitted use (NY City Zoning Resolution § 74-781) was not bona fide (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598 [1977]; Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 227 AD2d 779, 781 [1996]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibble F. Payne, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which denied petitioners’ application to annul respondent City Planning Commission’s (CPC) determination granting respondent developer a special use permit and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb CPC’s finding that the single expression of interest received by the developer in response to its efforts to rent the space for a permitted use (NY City Zoning Resolution § 74-781) was not bona fide (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598 [1977]; Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 227 AD2d 779, 781 [1996]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 215, 783 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/620-broadway-housing-corp-v-city-planning-commission-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack