Center Square Ass'n v. Board of Building, Zoning & Housing Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Center Square Ass'n v. Board of Building, Zoning & Housing Appeals

195 A.D.2d 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6911

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 684 (Center Square Ass'n v. Board of Building, Zoning & Housing 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

Center Square Ass'n v. Board of Building, Zoning & Housing Appeals, 195 A.D.2d 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 30, 1992 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent granting a use variance to State Street Mansion House, Inc.

In August 1990, Lee Simmons, Jr. and others formed State Street Mansion House, Inc. (hereinafter SSMH) and purchased the property at 281 State Street in the City of Albany, with full knowledge that it was zoned for multifamily residential use. The property, previously occupied by the Albany Bible Institute and as a community residence, is improved with a three-floor structure containing approximately 10,400 square feet. SSMH eventually obtained a use variance from respondent for a 12-bedroom bed and breakfast restaurant and two apartments. Petitioners then commenced this proceeding seeking to annul respondent’s determination. Supreme Court found, inter alia, that respondent’s determination was supported by the evidence in the record and that any self-imposed hardship was overcome because the former uses for the property had become obsolete. Supreme Court therefore entered judgment dismissing the petition. Petitioners appeal.

At the argument on this appeal, counsel noted that the structure had already been altered and occupancy certificates issued. Because the completion of the work during the pendency of this appeal renders the controversy moot and petitioners failed to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of this proceeding, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Harbour v Riedell, 172 AD2d 920, 921; Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 AD2d 842, 843; Matter of Serafín v Wallace, 117 AD2d 926, 926-927; Matter of Friends of the Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 248, affd 59 NY2d 849).

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered March 30, 1992 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent granting a use variance to State Street Mansion House, Inc.

In August 1990, Lee Simmons, Jr. and others formed State Street Mansion House, Inc. (hereinafter SSMH) and purchased the property at 281 State Street in the City of Albany, with full knowledge that it was zoned for multifamily residential use. The property, previously occupied by the Albany Bible Institute and as a community residence, is improved with a three-floor structure containing approximately 10,400 square feet. SSMH eventually obtained a use variance from respondent for a 12-bedroom bed and breakfast restaurant and two apartments. Petitioners then commenced this proceeding seeking to annul respondent’s determination. Supreme Court found, inter alia, that respondent’s determination was supported by the evidence in the record and that any self-imposed hardship was overcome because the former uses for the property had become obsolete. Supreme Court therefore entered judgment dismissing the petition. Petitioners appeal.

At the argument on this appeal, counsel noted that the structure had already been altered and occupancy certificates issued. Because the completion of the work during the pendency of this appeal renders the controversy moot and petitioners failed to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of this proceeding, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Harbour v Riedell, 172 AD2d 920, 921; Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 AD2d 842, 843; Matter of Serafín v Wallace, 117 AD2d 926, 926-927; Matter of Friends of the Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 248, affd 59 NY2d 849).

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 684, 599 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/center-square-assn-v-board-of-building-zoning-housing-appeals-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack