Karl v. McKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karl v. McKenzie

10 A.D.2d 865, 199 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10700

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

DecidedApril 11, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 865 (Karl v. McKenzie) 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

Karl v. McKenzie, 10 A.D.2d 865, 199 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an article 78 proceeding, the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Northport appeal from an order which annuls their determination and directs them to issue a permit for the construction of an addition to a building, for use as an enlarged dining room. The subject premises are situated in a Residence District under the local zoning ordinance. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed, without costs. No findings of fact were made by the Special Term. Respondent’s application to appellants was for permission to extend a nonconforming use. Appellants denied the application on the ground that no evidence was presented of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, as required by the local village ordinance (art. K, § 3b (2); art. G, § 2). The record sustains the holding that there was no evidence of difficulties and hardship, and consequently appellants were without power to grant the application. There is no merit to respondent’s contention that no proof of difficulties and hardship was essential inasmuch as appellants, at two earlier times, had granted permission to respondent to make certain enlargements of the building. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an article 78 proceeding, the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Northport appeal from an order which annuls their determination and directs them to issue a permit for the construction of an addition to a building, for use as an enlarged dining room. The subject premises are situated in a Residence District under the local zoning ordinance. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed, without costs. No findings of fact were made by the Special Term. Respondent’s application to appellants was for permission to extend a nonconforming use. Appellants denied the application on the ground that no evidence was presented of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, as required by the local village ordinance (art. K, § 3b (2); art. G, § 2). The record sustains the holding that there was no evidence of difficulties and hardship, and consequently appellants were without power to grant the application. There is no merit to respondent’s contention that no proof of difficulties and hardship was essential inasmuch as appellants, at two earlier times, had granted permission to respondent to make certain enlargements of the building. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 865, 199 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karl-v-mckenzie-nyappdiv-1960.