Conners v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conners v. Zoning Board of Appeals

249 A.D.2d 473, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4286

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 473 (Conners v. Zoning Board of 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

Conners v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 249 A.D.2d 473, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4286 (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 Hempstead, dated May 22, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the intervenorrespondent, Channel View Realty Corp., variances to construct an addition to an existing restaurant and to use part of the premises for outdoor dining, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 30, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead to grant variances to the intervenor-respondent Channel View Realty Corp. was rationally based and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the petition was properly denied and the proceeding dismissed (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 Hempstead, dated May 22, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the intervenorrespondent, Channel View Realty Corp., variances to construct an addition to an existing restaurant and to use part of the premises for outdoor dining, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 30, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead to grant variances to the intervenor-respondent Channel View Realty Corp. was rationally based and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the petition was properly denied and the proceeding dismissed (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 473, 671 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conners-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack