Baright v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baright v. Zoning Board of Appeals

215 A.D.2d 555, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5062

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

DecidedMay 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 555 (Baright 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

Baright v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 215 A.D.2d 555, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Wappingers Falls, dated January 15, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for permission to expand a laundromat to include a fitness room, tanning booth, pool table, and hot food service without the necessity of obtaining a use variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered October 1, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly held that the interpretation of the term "laundromat” by the Zoning Board of Appeals was not irrational or unreasonable (see, e.g., Aim Rent A Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Copertino and Altman, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Wappingers Falls, dated January 15, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for permission to expand a laundromat to include a fitness room, tanning booth, pool table, and hot food service without the necessity of obtaining a use variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered October 1, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly held that the interpretation of the term "laundromat” by the Zoning Board of Appeals was not irrational or unreasonable (see, e.g., Aim Rent A Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 555, 627 N.Y.S.2d 951, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baright-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack