Darcy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darcy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Rochester

185 A.D.2d 624, 586 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9141

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 624 (Darcy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Rochester) 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

Darcy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Rochester, 185 A.D.2d 624, 586 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the Zoning Board’s determination that the nonconforming restaurant use at 75 Marshall Street had not been discontinued or abandoned. Section 115-96 (9) (a) of the Rochester City Code provides: "When a nonconforming use * * * is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six (6) consecutive months, regardless of any reservation of an intent to resume or not to abandon such use, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed.” It is undisputed that the property had not been used as a restaurant for at least 20 months. Thus, the nonconforming use had been discontinued well beyond the specified period, and the ordinance expressly forecloses inquiry into the owner’s intent to resume or not to abandon (see, Matter of Sun Oil Co. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 57 AD2d 627, affd 44 NY2d 995; Village of Spencerport v Webaco Oil Co., 33 AD2d 634; 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice §§ 6.46-6.47 [3d ed]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Strobridge, J.—Article 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the Zoning Board’s determination that the nonconforming restaurant use at 75 Marshall Street had not been discontinued or abandoned. Section 115-96 (9) (a) of the Rochester City Code provides: "When a nonconforming use * * * is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six (6) consecutive months, regardless of any reservation of an intent to resume or not to abandon such use, such use shall not thereafter be reestablished or resumed.” It is undisputed that the property had not been used as a restaurant for at least 20 months. Thus, the nonconforming use had been discontinued well beyond the specified period, and the ordinance expressly forecloses inquiry into the owner’s intent to resume or not to abandon (see, Matter of Sun Oil Co. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 57 AD2d 627, affd 44 NY2d 995; Village of Spencerport v Webaco Oil Co., 33 AD2d 634; 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice §§ 6.46-6.47 [3d ed]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Strobridge, J.—Article 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 624, 586 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darcy-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack