Frink v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Pawling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frink v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Pawling

149 A.D.2d 593, 540 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959

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

DecidedApril 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 593 (Frink v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Pawling) 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

Frink v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Pawling, 149 A.D.2d 593, 540 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Pawling which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated November 10, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and that the judicial function is a limited one (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309). Inasmuch as the Zoning Board’s determination denying the petitioner an area variance has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, it should be sustained (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591).

We have examined the remaining contentions raised by the petitioner and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, 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 Pawling which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated November 10, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and that the judicial function is a limited one (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309). Inasmuch as the Zoning Board’s determination denying the petitioner an area variance has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, it should be sustained (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591).

We have examined the remaining contentions raised by the petitioner and find that they are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 593, 540 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frink-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-pawling-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack