Elide Building Corp. v. Allocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elide Building Corp. v. Allocco

4 A.D.3d 426, 771 N.Y.S.2d 381

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 426 (Elide Building Corp. v. Allocco) 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

Elide Building Corp. v. Allocco, 4 A.D.3d 426, 771 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester, dated April 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered October 18, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of the determination of a local zoning board is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]). Here, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester determined that the proposed apartment complex would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. This determination was based on the failure of the proposed complex to meet the zoning limitations on height, number of habitable stories, and side yard setbacks. The determination is supported by the record and is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 309; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra; Matter of Scimone v Humenik, 1 AD3d 370 [2003]; cf. Matter of Polsen v Rosenberg, 295 AD2d 352 [2002]; Matter of Tetra Bldrs. v Scheyer, 251 AD2d 589 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester, dated April 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered October 18, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of the determination of a local zoning board is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]). Here, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester determined that the proposed apartment complex would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. This determination was based on the failure of the proposed complex to meet the zoning limitations on height, number of habitable stories, and side yard setbacks. The determination is supported by the record and is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 309; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra; Matter of Scimone v Humenik, 1 AD3d 370 [2003]; cf. Matter of Polsen v Rosenberg, 295 AD2d 352 [2002]; Matter of Tetra Bldrs. v Scheyer, 251 AD2d 589 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 426, 771 N.Y.S.2d 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elide-building-corp-v-allocco-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack