Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.

158 A.D.2d 446, 551 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1262

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 446 (Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.) 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

Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc., 158 A.D.2d 446, 551 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[447]*447We find that the petitioners have failed to come forward with proof of significant economic injury or to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 596-597; Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 AD2d 582; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, 138-139). "Proof that the ordinance caused the applicant mere inconvenience, or that the property could be utilized more profitably if an area variance were granted, is ordinarily not sufficient to justify the issuance of a variance, irrespective of the application’s seeming reasonableness” (Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 140). Thus, the respondent properly denied the petitioners’ application. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

[447]*447We find that the petitioners have failed to come forward with proof of significant economic injury or to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 596-597; Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 AD2d 582; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, 138-139). "Proof that the ordinance caused the applicant mere inconvenience, or that the property could be utilized more profitably if an area variance were granted, is ordinarily not sufficient to justify the issuance of a variance, irrespective of the application’s seeming reasonableness” (Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 140). Thus, the respondent properly denied the petitioners’ application. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 446, 551 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colletti-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-of-the-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack