Annandale, Inc. v. Brienza

1 A.D.2d 785, 148 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6597
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 785 (Annandale, Inc. v. Brienza) 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
Annandale, Inc. v. Brienza, 1 A.D.2d 785, 148 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Appeal from an .order directing appellant to issue a permit for the erection of a residence building on respondent’s lot. . The lot abuts on an improved county highway, and the proposed building would be erected about 400 feet back from this highway. Appellant contends that the order is contrary to section 280-a of the Town Law in that there is no proof of access to the structure within the meaning of that statute. Respondent contends that inasmuch as the lot has frontage on the county highway, and the legal right of access thereby exists, the building permit should issue as of right. Order reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Special Term for the taking of proof in respect of physical access from the county highway to the proposed structure. The proceeding is in the nature of mandamus, and a positive order may be made only upon a showing of clear legal right to the relief. In the present ease, the unusual distance between the highway and the structure emphasizes the necessity of construing the statute as requiring physical access to the structure and not merely access to the portion of the lot which fronts on the highway. The purpose of the statute appears to be in the public interest and primarily to provide reasonable means of coping with fires and other emergencies. The statute does not require any particular form of physical access, merely any reasonable means. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brancato v. Zoning Board of Appeals
30 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Brock Properties, Inc. v. Bockman
166 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
American Nassau Building System, Ltd. v. Press
143 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Informal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1985

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 785, 148 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annandale-inc-v-brienza-nyappdiv-1956.