Friedman v. McGinity

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. McGinity

215 A.D.2d 384, 626 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 384 (Friedman v. McGinity) 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

Friedman v. McGinity, 215 A.D.2d 384, 626 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a [385]*385determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Island Park, dated September 8, 1992, which denied the petitioner’s application to amend a previously granted area variance, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), entered October 20, 1993, which denied the petition and, upon granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner failed to plead or prove the existence of practical difficulties demonstrating that he cannot utilize his property or the structure in question without coming into conflict with the zoning ordinance. The respondent, therefore, properly denied his application to amend a previously granted area variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, 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 [385]*385determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Island Park, dated September 8, 1992, which denied the petitioner’s application to amend a previously granted area variance, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), entered October 20, 1993, which denied the petition and, upon granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner failed to plead or prove the existence of practical difficulties demonstrating that he cannot utilize his property or the structure in question without coming into conflict with the zoning ordinance. The respondent, therefore, properly denied his application to amend a previously granted area variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 384, 626 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-mcginity-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack