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

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 388 (Cohen v. Bohrer) 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

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

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]*389Ordered 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]*389Ordered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 388, 670 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-bohrer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack