Beebe v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of New Castle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beebe v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of New Castle

65 A.D.2d 794, 410 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13662

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 794 (Beebe v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of New Castle) 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

Beebe v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of New Castle, 65 A.D.2d 794, 410 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals dated December 28, 1977, which, inter alia, granted an application of the intervenor-respondent for a special use permit. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. Under subdivision 7 of section 267 of the Town Law, this matter should have been disposed of at Special Term in the first instance, rather than having been transferred to this court. However, in view of the fact that the matter is before the court, it will be determined on the merits (see Falkenbury v Shultz, 44 AD2d 827). Henceforth, these matters are to be determined at Special Term. Addressing ourselves to the merits, we hold that the record does not indicate that the zoning board acted in a manner that was in any way arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. In addition, the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it should not be disturbed. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., not voting.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals dated December 28, 1977, which, inter alia, granted an application of the intervenor-respondent for a special use permit. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. Under subdivision 7 of section 267 of the Town Law, this matter should have been disposed of at Special Term in the first instance, rather than having been transferred to this court. However, in view of the fact that the matter is before the court, it will be determined on the merits (see Falkenbury v Shultz, 44 AD2d 827). Henceforth, these matters are to be determined at Special Term. Addressing ourselves to the merits, we hold that the record does not indicate that the zoning board acted in a manner that was in any way arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. In addition, the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, it should not be disturbed. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 794, 410 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beebe-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-town-of-new-castle-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack