Karten v. Squillace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karten v. Squillace

116 A.D.2d 719, 498 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51572

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 719 (Karten v. Squillace) 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

Karten v. Squillace, 116 A.D.2d 719, 498 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown which, after a hearing, denied petitioners’ application for a zoning variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered April 30, 1984, which dismissed the petitions.

Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents and intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[720]*720The Board’s determination that the application was for a use variance and was not to continue a preexisting nonconforming use was supported by substantial evidence, as was its conclusion that petitioners failed to demonstrate unnecessary hardship.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown which, after a hearing, denied petitioners’ application for a zoning variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered April 30, 1984, which dismissed the petitions.

Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents and intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

[720]*720The Board’s determination that the application was for a use variance and was not to continue a preexisting nonconforming use was supported by substantial evidence, as was its conclusion that petitioners failed to demonstrate unnecessary hardship.

Petitioners’ remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 719, 498 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karten-v-squillace-nyappdiv-1986.