Klein v. Seigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klein v. Seigel

47 A.D.2d 924, 367 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9369

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

DecidedApril 21, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 924 (Klein v. Seigel) 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

Klein v. Seigel, 47 A.D.2d 924, 367 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondents’ determination which denied (1) petitioners’ application for a conditional use permit and (2) related applications for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 4, 1974, which confirmed the determination without a hearing. Judgment affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. As petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proving that the proposed use meets the standards specified in the applicable zoning ordinance, the board properly denied their application (see Matter of Knight v Bodkin, 41 AD2d 413; cf. Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238). The board’s reliance on Findings Nos. 16 and 17 was unwarranted, but there are, as hereinabove stated, other and ample grounds which support affirmance. Gulotta, P. J., 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 to review respondents’ determination which denied (1) petitioners’ application for a conditional use permit and (2) related applications for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 4, 1974, which confirmed the determination without a hearing. Judgment affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. As petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proving that the proposed use meets the standards specified in the applicable zoning ordinance, the board properly denied their application (see Matter of Knight v Bodkin, 41 AD2d 413; cf. Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238). The board’s reliance on Findings Nos. 16 and 17 was unwarranted, but there are, as hereinabove stated, other and ample grounds which support affirmance. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 924, 367 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-seigel-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack