Barreca v. Village of Solvay Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barreca v. Village of Solvay Zoning Board of Appeals

233 A.D.2d 847, 649 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 847 (Barreca v. Village of Solvay 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

Barreca v. Village of Solvay Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 A.D.2d 847, 649 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioners’ contention that respondents failed to meet their burden of establishing their entitlement to an area variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 445; see generally, Matter of Gianchetta v Wilens, 122 AD2d 317). Because of the grade of the property where respondents’ fence is located, there is little or no impact upon surrounding properties. Supreme Court properly concluded that the determination to grant the area variance is rational and supported by substantial evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.— CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to petitioners’ contention that respondents failed to meet their burden of establishing their entitlement to an area variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 445; see generally, Matter of Gianchetta v Wilens, 122 AD2d 317). Because of the grade of the property where respondents’ fence is located, there is little or no impact upon surrounding properties. Supreme Court properly concluded that the determination to grant the area variance is rational and supported by substantial evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.— CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 847, 649 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barreca-v-village-of-solvay-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack