Irace v. Kramer

New York Supreme Court

Irace v. Kramer

20 Misc. 2d 432, 198 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2889

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 Misc. 2d 432 (Irace v. Kramer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Irace v. Kramer, 20 Misc. 2d 432, 198 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2889 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

By this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act petitioner, the owner of a triangular parcel of land at Albertson, seeks a review of a determination of the [433]*433Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead which refused his application for a variance.

The area of the plot is about 4,500 square feet. The ordinance required 5,000 square feet, and imposed certain setback requirements with which petitioner could not comply. The application was rejected on the theory that the petitioner’s title was acquired through the county as the result of a tax sale and that the county, while it owned petitioner’s premises, had also been the owner of adjoining premises included in the old Motor Parkway.

In another litigation decided herewith (Matter of Cambareri v. Michaelis, 20 Misc 2d 119), this court has held that ownership by the County of Nassau as the result of a sale for taxes does not operate to deprive individual but adjoining plots of land of immunity from area requirements under zoning ordinances which they may otherwise possess. That reasoning applies to the present case. In fact, in this instance, the county did in fact combine parcels in several ownerships to make up the plot now owned by the petitioner.

The determination under review will be annulled and the matter remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a permit subject to such reasonable provisions as to front and side yards as may be found proper. No costs.

Settle order on notice.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

By this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act petitioner, the owner of a triangular parcel of land at Albertson, seeks a review of a determination of the [433]*433Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead which refused his application for a variance.

The area of the plot is about 4,500 square feet. The ordinance required 5,000 square feet, and imposed certain setback requirements with which petitioner could not comply. The application was rejected on the theory that the petitioner’s title was acquired through the county as the result of a tax sale and that the county, while it owned petitioner’s premises, had also been the owner of adjoining premises included in the old Motor Parkway.

In another litigation decided herewith (Matter of Cambareri v. Michaelis, 20 Misc 2d 119), this court has held that ownership by the County of Nassau as the result of a sale for taxes does not operate to deprive individual but adjoining plots of land of immunity from area requirements under zoning ordinances which they may otherwise possess. That reasoning applies to the present case. In fact, in this instance, the county did in fact combine parcels in several ownerships to make up the plot now owned by the petitioner.

The determination under review will be annulled and the matter remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a permit subject to such reasonable provisions as to front and side yards as may be found proper. No costs.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Misc. 2d 432, 198 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irace-v-kramer-nysupct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack