East 91st Street Neighbors to Preserve Landmarks, Inc. v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East 91st Street Neighbors to Preserve Landmarks, Inc. v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals

294 A.D.2d 126, 740 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248

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

DecidedMay 7, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 126 (East 91st Street Neighbors to Preserve Landmarks, Inc. v. New York City Board of Standards & 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

East 91st Street Neighbors to Preserve Landmarks, Inc. v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals, 294 A.D.2d 126, 740 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 17, 2001, which denied and dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, inter alia, set aside a resolution of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals dated January 9, 2001, granting an amendment to a previously granted zoning variance to allow respondent Sacred Heart to erect an 85 foot high, 3268 square foot tower to be located in a portion of the side yard between the school’s buildings located at 1 and 9 East 91st Street in Manhattan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[127]*127Inasmuch as there was a rational basis for the determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals that respondent Sacred Heart School’s application to modify its variance sought only a minor modification in the previously approved variance, the decision of the Board of Standards and Appeals to consider the variance as amended without requiring Sacred Heart to file a new variance application was not arbitrary and capricious, and was thus properly left undisturbed by Supreme Court (see, CPLR 7803; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; accord, Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440). In addition, since Sacred Heart’s variance was initially granted upon the requisite findings that the standards set forth in New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 had been satisfied, and the proposed amendment to the variance was properly found to be of minor consequence, respondent Board properly approved the amended variance on a less rigorous showing than would have been required had the application before it been for an entirely new variance (see, Matter of Red House Farm v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Greenbush, 234 AD2d 770, 771).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 17, 2001, which denied and dismissed the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, inter alia, set aside a resolution of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals dated January 9, 2001, granting an amendment to a previously granted zoning variance to allow respondent Sacred Heart to erect an 85 foot high, 3268 square foot tower to be located in a portion of the side yard between the school’s buildings located at 1 and 9 East 91st Street in Manhattan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[127]*127Inasmuch as there was a rational basis for the determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals that respondent Sacred Heart School’s application to modify its variance sought only a minor modification in the previously approved variance, the decision of the Board of Standards and Appeals to consider the variance as amended without requiring Sacred Heart to file a new variance application was not arbitrary and capricious, and was thus properly left undisturbed by Supreme Court (see, CPLR 7803; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; accord, Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440). In addition, since Sacred Heart’s variance was initially granted upon the requisite findings that the standards set forth in New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 had been satisfied, and the proposed amendment to the variance was properly found to be of minor consequence, respondent Board properly approved the amended variance on a less rigorous showing than would have been required had the application before it been for an entirely new variance (see, Matter of Red House Farm v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Greenbush, 234 AD2d 770, 771).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 126, 740 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-91st-street-neighbors-to-preserve-landmarks-inc-v-new-york-city-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack