Beirne v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beirne v. Zoning Board of Appeals

267 A.D.2d 234, 699 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12527

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 234 (Beirne 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

Beirne v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 267 A.D.2d 234, 699 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pleasantville, dated February 3, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the application of the petitioner for four area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 30, 1998, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pleasantville that the benefit to the petitioner from the requested area variances was outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; Matter of Csuha v Trotta, [235]*235261 AD2d 618). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and H. Miller, 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 Pleasantville, dated February 3, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the application of the petitioner for four area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 30, 1998, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pleasantville that the benefit to the petitioner from the requested area variances was outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; Matter of Csuha v Trotta, [235]*235261 AD2d 618). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 234, 699 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beirne-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack