In re Gazan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gazan

278 A.D. 953, 105 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351

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

DecidedJune 11, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 953 (In re Gazan) 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

In re Gazan, 278 A.D. 953, 105 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to review a determination of the zoning board of appeals of the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, granting permit for use of land situated in an industrial L zone as a community refuse dump and incinerator, it has been held that the permit is void in that the hearing, as a result of which the permit was granted, was conducted without notices of hearing having been mailed to residents within a reasonable radius, and that such residents were parties entitled to such form of notice under section 267 of the Town Law. Order reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the proceeding dismissed, without costs. It does not appear that petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law. (Ottinger v. Arenal Realty Go., 257 H. T. 371.) The subject matter of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Go. (339 TJ. S. 306) is readily distinguishable, and that decision is not controlling. Holán, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to review a determination of the zoning board of appeals of the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, granting permit for use of land situated in an industrial L zone as a community refuse dump and incinerator, it has been held that the permit is void in that the hearing, as a result of which the permit was granted, was conducted without notices of hearing having been mailed to residents within a reasonable radius, and that such residents were parties entitled to such form of notice under section 267 of the Town Law. Order reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the proceeding dismissed, without costs. It does not appear that petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law. (Ottinger v. Arenal Realty Go., 257 H. T. 371.) The subject matter of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Go. (339 TJ. S. 306) is readily distinguishable, and that decision is not controlling. Holán, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 953, 105 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gazan-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack