Hotaling v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hotaling v. Zoning Board of Appeals

6 A.D.3d 1227, 775 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272

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

DecidedApril 30, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1227 (Hotaling v. Zoning Board of 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

Hotaling v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 6 A.D.3d 1227, 775 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (William R. Roy, J), entered November 21, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum; Supreme Court properly denied the CPLR article 78 petition challenging the determination requiring petitioner to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, in order to operate his “adult use” business. The zoning regulation applicable herein prohibits “adult uses” within 1,000 [1228]*1228feet of property used for residential purposes, and thus a use variance is required (see Matter of Doran v Lewis, 309 AD2d 1183, 1184 [2003]). With regard to petitioner’s constitutional challenges, we note that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper procedural vehicle by which to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment (see Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695, 702 [1980]; see also DiMiero v Livingston-Steuben-Wyoming County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 199 AD2d 875, 876-877 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 756 [1994]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (William R. Roy, J), entered November 21, 2002 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum; Supreme Court properly denied the CPLR article 78 petition challenging the determination requiring petitioner to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, in order to operate his “adult use” business. The zoning regulation applicable herein prohibits “adult uses” within 1,000 [1228]*1228feet of property used for residential purposes, and thus a use variance is required (see Matter of Doran v Lewis, 309 AD2d 1183, 1184 [2003]). With regard to petitioner’s constitutional challenges, we note that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper procedural vehicle by which to challenge the constitutionality of a legislative enactment (see Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695, 702 [1980]; see also DiMiero v Livingston-Steuben-Wyoming County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 199 AD2d 875, 876-877 [1993], lv denied 83 NY2d 756 [1994]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 1227, 775 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotaling-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack