Giuntini v. Aronow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giuntini v. Aronow

92 A.D.2d 548, 459 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16771

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 548 (Giuntini v. Aronow) 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

Giuntini v. Aronow, 92 A.D.2d 548, 459 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

•— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Putnam Valley which denied petitioners’ application for an area variance, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered February 26,1982, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There is substantial evidence to support the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals determination. In any event, we note that the board lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested area variance (see Matter ofPellicane v Nardy, 83 AD2d 842). The grant of an area variance affecting such a large tract of land (approximately 31 acres in this case) would invade the zoning province of the legislative body (Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 AD2d 58, affd 28 NY2d 608; cf. Matter of Cohalan v Schermerhorn, 77 Mise 2d 23). Damiarii, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, 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 by the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Putnam Valley which denied petitioners’ application for an area variance, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered February 26,1982, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There is substantial evidence to support the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals determination. In any event, we note that the board lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested area variance (see Matter ofPellicane v Nardy, 83 AD2d 842). The grant of an area variance affecting such a large tract of land (approximately 31 acres in this case) would invade the zoning province of the legislative body (Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 AD2d 58, affd 28 NY2d 608; cf. Matter of Cohalan v Schermerhorn, 77 Mise 2d 23). Damiarii, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 548, 459 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giuntini-v-aronow-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack