Hackford v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hackford v. Jones

27 A.D.2d 692, 279 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 692 (Hackford v. Jones) 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

Hackford v. Jones, 27 A.D.2d 692, 279 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified by deleting therefrom the last two ordering paragraphs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The last two ordering paragraphs are not necessary to a decision. The contemplated present use of the property was known, considered, and permitted by the Town Board. If the stricken paragraphs are intended to regulate the future use of the property they are improper. If, in the future there are violations of the zoning laws, that problem may be considered and determined in view of the circumstances as they may exist at that time. There may be many factors in the future not now ascertainable, such as zoning amendments, change of circumstances, and the like. The stricken paragraphs might cause unnecessary confusion. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing petition with certain limitations.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified by deleting therefrom the last two ordering paragraphs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The last two ordering paragraphs are not necessary to a decision. The contemplated present use of the property was known, considered, and permitted by the Town Board. If the stricken paragraphs are intended to regulate the future use of the property they are improper. If, in the future there are violations of the zoning laws, that problem may be considered and determined in view of the circumstances as they may exist at that time. There may be many factors in the future not now ascertainable, such as zoning amendments, change of circumstances, and the like. The stricken paragraphs might cause unnecessary confusion. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing petition with certain limitations.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 692, 279 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hackford-v-jones-nyappdiv-1967.