Hoglund v. Roehrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoglund v. Roehrich

265 A.D.2d 556, 696 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 556 (Hoglund v. Roehrich) 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

Hoglund v. Roehrich, 265 A.D.2d 556, 696 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Village of Lake Grove dated March 4, 1998, and filed with the Village Clerk on March 5, 1998, granting a zoning variance, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated August 6, 1998, as granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to comply with the filing requirements of CPLR 304, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs (see, Matter ofKurtzberg v [557]*557Mastroianni, 262 AD2d 485).

Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 Village of Lake Grove dated March 4, 1998, and filed with the Village Clerk on March 5, 1998, granting a zoning variance, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated August 6, 1998, as granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for failure to comply with the filing requirements of CPLR 304, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs (see, Matter ofKurtzberg v [557]*557Mastroianni, 262 AD2d 485).

Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 556, 696 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoglund-v-roehrich-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack