Kemp v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kemp v. Zoning Board of Appeals

216 A.D.2d 466, 628 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 1995·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Wappingers Falls dated August 10, 1993, which, after a [467]*467hearing, granted the respondent Tony Rabadi a use variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 18, 1994, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellants failed to establish that the variance in question caused them an injury within the "zone of interests” protected by zoning regulations, inasmuch as the only potential injury suggested in the record is an increase in business competition (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 414-415; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9). Absent demonstration of some other injury, the appellants lack standing to challenge the variance, regardless of their proximity to the applicant’s property (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, supra, at 414). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, 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 a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Wappingers Falls dated August 10, 1993, which, after a [467]*467hearing, granted the respondent Tony Rabadi a use variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 18, 1994, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellants failed to establish that the variance in question caused them an injury within the "zone of interests” protected by zoning regulations, inasmuch as the only potential injury suggested in the record is an increase in business competition (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 414-415; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 9). Absent demonstration of some other injury, the appellants lack standing to challenge the variance, regardless of their proximity to the applicant’s property (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, supra, at 414). Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Kemp v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 216 A.D.2d 466, 628 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 466 (Kemp v. Zoning Board of Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related