Giardino v. Gardinier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giardino v. Gardinier

124 A.D.2d 1020, 508 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62363

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: We affirm upon the ground that the court correctly determined that petitioners lacked standing to contest the granting of a use variance. Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals determination, and mere status as a taxpayer or business competitor is an insufficient basis for standing (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 11; Matter of Paolangeli v Stevens, 19 AD2d 763). Thus viewed, it is unnecessary to reach any other issue. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Inglehart, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: We affirm upon the ground that the court correctly determined that petitioners lacked standing to contest the granting of a use variance. Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals determination, and mere status as a taxpayer or business competitor is an insufficient basis for standing (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 11; Matter of Paolangeli v Stevens, 19 AD2d 763). Thus viewed, it is unnecessary to reach any other issue. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Inglehart, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Giardino v. Gardinier, 124 A.D.2d 1020, 508 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 1020 (Giardino v. Gardinier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related