Kadish v. Simpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kadish v. Simpson

55 A.D.2d 911, 390 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10157

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 911 (Kadish v. Simpson) 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

Kadish v. Simpson, 55 A.D.2d 911, 390 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondents’ determination, dated May 20, 1976, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application made pursuant to a village ordinance, for a permit to grade, spread topsoil and seed his property. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to respondents for reconsideration and the making of findings in proper form, with leave to the parties to present such other and further proof as they may be advised. The board did not set forth the facts upon which it based its determination. Mere conclusory statements without any findings of fact are insufficient. The requirement of a clear statement of factual grounds for the denial of a permit is not met by merely restating the terms of the applicable statute (2 Anderson, NY Zoning Law & Practice [2d ed], § 20.31; see, also, Matter of Seaford Jewish Center v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 48 AD2d 686; Matter of T. J. R. Enterprises v Town Bd. of Town of Southeast, 50 AD2d 836). Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondents’ determination, dated May 20, 1976, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application made pursuant to a village ordinance, for a permit to grade, spread topsoil and seed his property. Determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to respondents for reconsideration and the making of findings in proper form, with leave to the parties to present such other and further proof as they may be advised. The board did not set forth the facts upon which it based its determination. Mere conclusory statements without any findings of fact are insufficient. The requirement of a clear statement of factual grounds for the denial of a permit is not met by merely restating the terms of the applicable statute (2 Anderson, NY Zoning Law & Practice [2d ed], § 20.31; see, also, Matter of Seaford Jewish Center v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 48 AD2d 686; Matter of T. J. R. Enterprises v Town Bd. of Town of Southeast, 50 AD2d 836). Margett, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 911, 390 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kadish-v-simpson-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack