Bausch v. Minsker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bausch v. Minsker

197 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 837 (Bausch v. Minsker) 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

Bausch v. Minsker, 197 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for a use variance. Petitioner failed to establish that no reasonable return could be achieved under a permitted use of the property and thus failed to meet the requisite showing of unnecessary hardship (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254, 257; Matter of Otto v Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76). The bare conclusory testimony of witnesses that the property could not yield a reasonable return was insufficient to justify the grant of a use variance (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, supra, at 259). We conclude that respondents’ determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Article 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for a use variance. Petitioner failed to establish that no reasonable return could be achieved under a permitted use of the property and thus failed to meet the requisite showing of unnecessary hardship (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254, 257; Matter of Otto v Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76). The bare conclusory testimony of witnesses that the property could not yield a reasonable return was insufficient to justify the grant of a use variance (Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, supra, at 259). We conclude that respondents’ determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Article 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 837, 602 N.Y.S.2d 248, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bausch-v-minsker-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack