Fedele v. Baruch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fedele v. Baruch

67 A.D.2d 683, 412 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10279

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 683 (Fedele v. Baruch) 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

Fedele v. Baruch, 67 A.D.2d 683, 412 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals which, after a hearing, granted an area variance to the respondent property owner, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 20, 1977, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable jointly to respondents. We hold under the circumstances present here, that petitioners were not prejudiced by the lack of a transcript or by the zoning board’s refusal to reopen the hearing. The determination must be confirmed because the record supports the view that the respondent property owner would be confronted with practical difficulties unless granted a variance (cf. Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, 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 respondent zoning board of appeals which, after a hearing, granted an area variance to the respondent property owner, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 20, 1977, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable jointly to respondents. We hold under the circumstances present here, that petitioners were not prejudiced by the lack of a transcript or by the zoning board’s refusal to reopen the hearing. The determination must be confirmed because the record supports the view that the respondent property owner would be confronted with practical difficulties unless granted a variance (cf. Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 683, 412 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fedele-v-baruch-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack