Furman Avenue Realty Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Furman Avenue Realty Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals

275 A.D.2d 779

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

DecidedApril 11, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 779 (Furman Avenue Realty Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals) 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

Furman Avenue Realty Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 275 A.D.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The application to alter a cow stable' for the purpose of installing therein a processing plant must be denied under subdivision (a) of section 6 of the zoning resolution, which prohibits change or extension of use “ in such building ”, The 1920 certificate of occupancy, which adds nothing to the undisputed facts, is ambiguous and could not be deemed controlling beyond its purpose, which was to describe the use of an existing building, obviously not the cow stable, which had not been used prior to 1916 as a processing plant. If disposition, as a matter of law, of this application for alteration was not imperative, there would remain questions of fact requiring remission to the board of standards and appeals for determination. These are (1) as to "acquirement of a vested right to purchase milk from the outside for processing and (2) whether proposed alterations come within the [780]*780limitation of one half of the value of the building. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

The application to alter a cow stable' for the purpose of installing therein a processing plant must be denied under subdivision (a) of section 6 of the zoning resolution, which prohibits change or extension of use “ in such building ”, The 1920 certificate of occupancy, which adds nothing to the undisputed facts, is ambiguous and could not be deemed controlling beyond its purpose, which was to describe the use of an existing building, obviously not the cow stable, which had not been used prior to 1916 as a processing plant. If disposition, as a matter of law, of this application for alteration was not imperative, there would remain questions of fact requiring remission to the board of standards and appeals for determination. These are (1) as to "acquirement of a vested right to purchase milk from the outside for processing and (2) whether proposed alterations come within the [780]*780limitation of one half of the value of the building. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-avenue-realty-corp-v-board-of-standards-appeals-nyappdiv-1949.