Cohen v. Bohrer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Bohrer

249 A.D.2d 388, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated January 29, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 19, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[389] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington that the petitioners’ proposed business use of their residential property was not “similar * * * by reason of education, training and experience” to those home occupations which are set forth in the zoning ordinance at issue was neither unreasonable, irrational, nor an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 NY2d 823; Matter of Simon v Board of Appeals, 208 AD2d 931; Corter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 AD2d 184). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, 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 respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated January 29, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 19, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

[389] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington that the petitioners’ proposed business use of their residential property was not “similar * * * by reason of education, training and experience” to those home occupations which are set forth in the zoning ordinance at issue was neither unreasonable, irrational, nor an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 NY2d 823; Matter of Simon v Board of Appeals, 208 AD2d 931; Corter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 AD2d 184). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cohen v. Bohrer, 249 A.D.2d 388, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

249 A.D.2d 388 (Cohen v. Bohrer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related