Elliott v. Galvin

New York Court of Appeals

Elliott v. Galvin

301 N.E.2d 439, 33 N.Y.2d 594, 347 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1084

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 3, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 301 N.E.2d 439 (Elliott v. Galvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. Galvin, 301 N.E.2d 439, 33 N.Y.2d 594, 347 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1084 (N.Y. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Special Term reinstated in the following memorandum: The record supports the finding that the location of the zoning lot within two different zoning districts, as well as the irregular shape and small size of the 01-9 portion of the zoning lot constitute such ‘1 unique physical conditions ’ ’ which allow the granting of & variance within the meaning of section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution. The record also discloses that the Board of Standards and Appeals has made all of the other findings required of it by section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution, and we conclude that these findings are not arbitrary or contrary to law.

Concur: Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli and Wachtler. Judge Jones dissents and votes to affirm upon the ground that there is no basis, on the record in this case, for a finding of the prerequisite ‘1 unique physical conditions ” as to this property. Taking no part: Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Breitel.

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

Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Special Term reinstated in the following memorandum: The record supports the finding that the location of the zoning lot within two different zoning districts, as well as the irregular shape and small size of the 01-9 portion of the zoning lot constitute such ‘1 unique physical conditions ’ ’ which allow the granting of & variance within the meaning of section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution. The record also discloses that the Board of Standards and Appeals has made all of the other findings required of it by section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution, and we conclude that these findings are not arbitrary or contrary to law.

Concur: Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli and Wachtler. Judge Jones dissents and votes to affirm upon the ground that there is no basis, on the record in this case, for a finding of the prerequisite ‘1 unique physical conditions ” as to this property. Taking no part: Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Breitel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 N.E.2d 439, 33 N.Y.2d 594, 347 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-galvin-ny-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack