Kennedy v. Haff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kennedy v. Haff

51 A.D.2d 744, 379 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11270

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 744 (Kennedy v. Haff) 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

Kennedy v. Haff, 51 A.D.2d 744, 379 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals, dated November 23, 1974 and made after a hearing, which denied petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, [745]*745entered March 20, 1975, which granted the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The zoning board of appeals presented no evidence to support its denial of the requested area variance, while petitioner demonstrated, at a minimum, practical difficulties if a variance were not granted. Special Term thus correctly determined that the denial of the variance was arbitrary and capricious. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, 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 inter alia to review a determination of the respondent zoning board of appeals, dated November 23, 1974 and made after a hearing, which denied petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, [745]*745entered March 20, 1975, which granted the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The zoning board of appeals presented no evidence to support its denial of the requested area variance, while petitioner demonstrated, at a minimum, practical difficulties if a variance were not granted. Special Term thus correctly determined that the denial of the variance was arbitrary and capricious. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 744, 379 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-haff-nyappdiv-1976.