Buckley v. Fasbender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buckley v. Fasbender

285 A.D. 976, 139 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6349

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 976 (Buckley v. Fasbender) 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

Buckley v. Fasbender, 285 A.D. 976, 139 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Four Corners Realty Corporation and by the Town of Huntington and the officials of said town from so much of a judgment entered on the decision of an Official Referee, to whom the matter was referred to hear and determine, which declares invalid the rezoning of a ten-acre parcel of property owned by the first-named appellant from residence “ B ” to “ General Industry” on the ground that it is spot zoning for the benefit of the property owner rather than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

Appeal by Four Corners Realty Corporation and by the Town of Huntington and the officials of said town from so much of a judgment entered on the decision of an Official Referee, to whom the matter was referred to hear and determine, which declares invalid the rezoning of a ten-acre parcel of property owned by the first-named appellant from residence “ B ” to “ General Industry” on the ground that it is spot zoning for the benefit of the property owner rather than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 976, 139 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-fasbender-nyappdiv-1955.