Coopersmith v. Murdock

262 A.D. 1032, 30 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7115
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 1032 (Coopersmith v. Murdock) 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
Coopersmith v. Murdock, 262 A.D. 1032, 30 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

The board of standards and appeals of the city of New York, after a hearing, made a determination revoking the certificate of occupancy of premises which were being used as a stable for more than five horses. Thereafter, in a certiorari proceeding to review this determination the Special Term referred the issues to an official referee for hearing. On petitioner’s motion the Special Term then made an order confirming the referee’s report, sustaining the certiorari order, reversing the determination of the board and reinstating the certificate of occupancy. Prom this order the board appeals. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, motion to confirm report of official referee denied, proceeding dismissed, without costs, and determination of the board of standards and appeals reinstated and confirmed. The evidence before the board was sufficient to support its conclusion that prior to 1916 there never was a nonconforming use of the premises. The stabling of cows, as incidental or accessory to the maintenance of a dairy farm, was not a use proscribed by the zoning ordinance in the area in which the premises are located. However, the present use of the premises as a stable for more than five horses is a prohibited use. Such a use cannot be deemed a continuance of the use prior to 1916. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Town of Carmel v. Meadowbrook National Bank
15 Misc. 2d 789 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Defelice v. Zoning Board of Appeals
32 A.2d 635 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D. 1032, 30 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coopersmith-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1941.