Incorporated Village of Mineola v. Cycle Outlet Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Incorporated Village of Mineola v. Cycle Outlet Corp.

81 A.D.2d 633, 440 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137

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

DecidedApril 20, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 633 (Incorporated Village of Mineola v. Cycle Outlet Corp.) 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

Incorporated Village of Mineola v. Cycle Outlet Corp., 81 A.D.2d 633, 440 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to enjoin defendants from maintaining a motorcycle dealership in violation of the local zoning ordinances of plaintiff Incorporated Village of Mineóla, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 28, 1980, which granted the injunction. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court imposed upon defendants an unduly strict burden of proving that their present activities were but an extension of a valid prior nonconforming use, in view of the court’s findings of fact specifically crediting the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses which refuted defendants’ contention, it is apparent that defendants did not sustain their burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to enjoin defendants from maintaining a motorcycle dealership in violation of the local zoning ordinances of plaintiff Incorporated Village of Mineóla, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 28, 1980, which granted the injunction. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court imposed upon defendants an unduly strict burden of proving that their present activities were but an extension of a valid prior nonconforming use, in view of the court’s findings of fact specifically crediting the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses which refuted defendants’ contention, it is apparent that defendants did not sustain their burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Damiani, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 633, 440 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/incorporated-village-of-mineola-v-cycle-outlet-corp-nyappdiv-1981.