Casserino v. City of Rochester
267 A.D.2d 967, 700 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13681
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[968] exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to their contention that they were entitled to a use variance, and this Court has no discretionary power to reach it (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Casserino v. City of Rochester, 267 A.D.2d 967, 700 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).
267 A.D.2d 967 (Casserino v. City of Rochester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
J A J K, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control
272 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)