Dempsey v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dempsey v. Murdock

241 A.D. 64, 271 N.Y.S. 9, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169

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

DecidedApril 20, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D. 64 (Dempsey 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

Dempsey v. Murdock, 241 A.D. 64, 271 N.Y.S. 9, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This proceeding was instituted by the respondent, to review the decision of the board of standards and appeals, which denied her petition to vary the Building Zone Resolution, so as tó permit the erection of a gasoline station, on the ground of unnecessary hardship. The court at Special Term reversed the determination of the board, without opinion. In so doing we believe that the court fell into error.

We cannot say upon this record that the board abused its discretion, or acted in bad faith, or that its action was unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal in refusing to vary the application of the use district regulation.

The property in question lies on the northwest corner of Williams-bridge road and Lydig avenue, in the borough of The Bronx. The frontage on the former thoroughfare is in a business district, while the frontage of the latter is in a residence district. Immediately adjoining the premises on the west are a number of residence buildings. The property was bought in 1928 and buildings thereafter erected, involving a total outlay of $22,500. The annual [65]*65carrying charges were $950, whereas the rentals amounted to $786.48. The traffic on the streets, in that particular section, is very light.

Based upon those facts, it is idle for the respondent to urge that she has made out a case of unnecessary hardship. (See People ex rel. Werner v. Walsh, 212 App. Div. 635; affd., 240 N. Y. 689.)

For the reasons assigned herein, the order appealed from should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, the order of certiorari dismissed, and the determination of the board of standards and appeals confirmed, with fifty dollars costs.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, the order of certiorari dismissed, and the determination of the board of standards and appeals confirmed, with fifty dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This proceeding was instituted by the respondent, to review the decision of the board of standards and appeals, which denied her petition to vary the Building Zone Resolution, so as tó permit the erection of a gasoline station, on the ground of unnecessary hardship. The court at Special Term reversed the determination of the board, without opinion. In so doing we believe that the court fell into error.

We cannot say upon this record that the board abused its discretion, or acted in bad faith, or that its action was unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal in refusing to vary the application of the use district regulation.

The property in question lies on the northwest corner of Williams-bridge road and Lydig avenue, in the borough of The Bronx. The frontage on the former thoroughfare is in a business district, while the frontage of the latter is in a residence district. Immediately adjoining the premises on the west are a number of residence buildings. The property was bought in 1928 and buildings thereafter erected, involving a total outlay of $22,500. The annual [65]*65carrying charges were $950, whereas the rentals amounted to $786.48. The traffic on the streets, in that particular section, is very light.

Based upon those facts, it is idle for the respondent to urge that she has made out a case of unnecessary hardship. (See People ex rel. Werner v. Walsh, 212 App. Div. 635; affd., 240 N. Y. 689.)

For the reasons assigned herein, the order appealed from should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, the order of certiorari dismissed, and the determination of the board of standards and appeals confirmed, with fifty dollars costs.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, the order of certiorari dismissed, and the determination of the board of standards and appeals confirmed, with fifty dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 64, 271 N.Y.S. 9, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dempsey-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack