Kast v. Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kast v. Casey

129 A.D.2d 641, 514 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45321

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

DecidedApril 13, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 641 (Kast v. Casey) 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

Kast v. Casey, 129 A.D.2d 641, 514 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, both dated March 21, 1985, denying the petitioner’s applications for variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated October 11, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where a zoning ordinance provides an exception for construction on substandard lots which have been in single and separate ownership since prior to the adoption of the ordinance, as is the case at bar, the owner may build thereon as a matter of right only if the proposed construction complies with all other provisions of the ordinance (Matter of Pellati v Scheyer, 115 AD2d 606; Matter of Dittmer v Scheyer, 74 AD2d 828). Here, the petitioner’s applications failed to show compliance with other provisions of the ordinance relating to matters such as parking and traffic safety and he was therefore not entitled to the variances sought as of right. Under the circumstances, and since the petitioner failed to establish that the denial of the variances would result in the infliction of either significant hardship or practical difficulty (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, rearg denied 42 NY2d 910; Matter of Pellati v Scheyer, supra), the applications were properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay, both dated March 21, 1985, denying the petitioner’s applications for variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated October 11, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where a zoning ordinance provides an exception for construction on substandard lots which have been in single and separate ownership since prior to the adoption of the ordinance, as is the case at bar, the owner may build thereon as a matter of right only if the proposed construction complies with all other provisions of the ordinance (Matter of Pellati v Scheyer, 115 AD2d 606; Matter of Dittmer v Scheyer, 74 AD2d 828). Here, the petitioner’s applications failed to show compliance with other provisions of the ordinance relating to matters such as parking and traffic safety and he was therefore not entitled to the variances sought as of right. Under the circumstances, and since the petitioner failed to establish that the denial of the variances would result in the infliction of either significant hardship or practical difficulty (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, rearg denied 42 NY2d 910; Matter of Pellati v Scheyer, supra), the applications were properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 641, 514 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kast-v-casey-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack