Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Senn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Senn

105 A.D.2d 1074, 482 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21158

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1074 (Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Senn) 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

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Senn, 105 A.D.2d 1074, 482 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in construing the provisions of the Lockport City Ordinance. That statute permits a property owner who enjoys a nonconforming use to switch to another nonconforming use of equal or more restrictive classification. This provision does not apply to petitioners, who operate their gas station pursuant to a variance, not pursuant to a nonconforming use (Matter of James v Town of New Hartford, 49 AD2d 247). Although Special Term did not reach the issue, we find petitioners’ proof inadequate to establish the “dollars and cents” proof necessary to support a use variance (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in construing the provisions of the Lockport City Ordinance. That statute permits a property owner who enjoys a nonconforming use to switch to another nonconforming use of equal or more restrictive classification. This provision does not apply to petitioners, who operate their gas station pursuant to a variance, not pursuant to a nonconforming use (Matter of James v Town of New Hartford, 49 AD2d 247). Although Special Term did not reach the issue, we find petitioners’ proof inadequate to establish the “dollars and cents” proof necessary to support a use variance (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1074, 482 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-richfield-co-v-senn-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack