Italiano v. City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Italiano v. City of Syracuse

97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20808

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 973 (Italiano v. City of Syracuse) 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

Italiano v. City of Syracuse, 97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment directing them to issue a building permit for the renovation of the second floor of a building at 400 South Clinton Street in Syracuse for use as an instructional health service facility. The sole argument raised by respondents is that petitioner’s proposed use is not authorized under the Syracuse Zoning Ordinance. We disagree. The property is situate in the “Central Business District — Office and Service District”. The applicable ordinance permits the use of property in such district for several enumerated services, including “instructional services such as music and dancing schools” (Syracuse Zoning Ordinance, part B, § IV, art 2, subd 2b). Respondents interpret the quoted language as limiting the use for instructional services to music and dancing schools. That interpretation violates the plain meaning of the language of the ordinance, and is untenable (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, §§ 238-240). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Aloi, J. — art 78.) Present ■— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment directing them to issue a building permit for the renovation of the second floor of a building at 400 South Clinton Street in Syracuse for use as an instructional health service facility. The sole argument raised by respondents is that petitioner’s proposed use is not authorized under the Syracuse Zoning Ordinance. We disagree. The property is situate in the “Central Business District — Office and Service District”. The applicable ordinance permits the use of property in such district for several enumerated services, including “instructional services such as music and dancing schools” (Syracuse Zoning Ordinance, part B, § IV, art 2, subd 2b). Respondents interpret the quoted language as limiting the use for instructional services to music and dancing schools. That interpretation violates the plain meaning of the language of the ordinance, and is untenable (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, §§ 238-240). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Aloi, J. — art 78.) Present ■— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 973, 468 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/italiano-v-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1983.