Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Irvington

224 A.D.2d 525, 638 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1145
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 525 (Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Irvington) 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
Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Irvington, 224 A.D.2d 525, 638 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington dated July 28, 1992, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the intervenor-respondent Jane K. Wells, inter alia, for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), entered July 13, 1994, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, Village Law § 7-712-b (3) requires a zoning board of appeals to engage in a balancing test, weighing "the benefit to [526]*526the applicant” against "the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community”. The applicant is not required to show "practical difficulties” as that test was formerly applied (Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384). Here, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington applied the balancing test and found in favor of the intervenorrespondent Jane K. Wells. Its determination had a rational basis and, accordingly, was properly sustained (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

O'Hara v. Brentwood Legion Ambulance Service, Inc.
298 A.D.2d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
James Simpson, Inc. v. City of New York Environmental Control Board
252 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Warm v. Zoning Board of Appeals
243 A.D.2d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Rosof v. Bailin
237 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals
237 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Malin v. Leibowitz
229 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Snyder v. Gaul
229 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 A.D.2d 525, 638 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eccles-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-village-of-irvington-nyappdiv-1996.