Chapman v. Devine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapman v. Devine

203 A.D.2d 914, 611 N.Y.S.2d 66

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 914 (Chapman v. Devine) 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

Chapman v. Devine, 203 A.D.2d 914, 611 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: [915]*915Supreme Court properly determined that petitioner’s use of two mobile home trailers on the property constituted a prior nonconforming residential use. Assuming, arguendo, that one of the mobile home trailers was used briefly for storage purposes, no evidence was presented to the Board of Appeals that would support an inference that petitioner intended to abandon residential use (see, Matter of Daggett v Putnam, 40 AD2d 576; see also, Barron v Getnick, 107 AD2d 1017, 1018). Under the circumstances, there was no need to grant a variance, and that paragraph of the judgment is deleted. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Law-ton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: [915]*915Supreme Court properly determined that petitioner’s use of two mobile home trailers on the property constituted a prior nonconforming residential use. Assuming, arguendo, that one of the mobile home trailers was used briefly for storage purposes, no evidence was presented to the Board of Appeals that would support an inference that petitioner intended to abandon residential use (see, Matter of Daggett v Putnam, 40 AD2d 576; see also, Barron v Getnick, 107 AD2d 1017, 1018). Under the circumstances, there was no need to grant a variance, and that paragraph of the judgment is deleted. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Law-ton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 914, 611 N.Y.S.2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-devine-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack