Ardmar Realty Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ardmar Realty Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

297 A.D.2d 733, 747 N.Y.2d 773, 747 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8689

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 733 (Ardmar Realty Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals) 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

Ardmar Realty Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 297 A.D.2d 733, 747 N.Y.2d 773, 747 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[734]*734Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its petition and dismissed the instant proceeding, since the petitioner “failed to carry [its] burden of showing that [its] contemplated use of the subject property ‘conforms with the standards imposed by the zoning ordinance’ ” (Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 AD2d 93, 99, quoting Matter of Monro Muffler / Brake v Town Bd. of Town of Perinton, 222 AD2d 1069; see Matter of Schadow v Wilson, 191 AD2d 53, 57).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

[734]*734Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its petition and dismissed the instant proceeding, since the petitioner “failed to carry [its] burden of showing that [its] contemplated use of the subject property ‘conforms with the standards imposed by the zoning ordinance’ ” (Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 AD2d 93, 99, quoting Matter of Monro Muffler / Brake v Town Bd. of Town of Perinton, 222 AD2d 1069; see Matter of Schadow v Wilson, 191 AD2d 53, 57).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 733, 747 N.Y.2d 773, 747 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardmar-realty-co-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack