Koenig v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koenig v. Board of Zoning Appeals

51 A.D.2d 1022, 381 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11803

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1022 (Koenig v. Board of Zoning Appeals) 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

Koenig v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 51 A.D.2d 1022, 381 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review appellant’s determination, dated April 2, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 23, 1975, which, inter alia, annulled the determination and directed appellant to grant an area variance to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Once petitioner demonstrated that he would suffer significant economic injury by the application to him of the area standards of section 24.72 (par [A], subpar [5]) of the Glen Cove Code of Ordinances, he was entitled to a variance unless appellant could show that the public health safety and welfare would be served by upholding the standards (see Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 NY2d 449, 454). This appellant failed to do. Indeed, the record on this appeal clearly indicates that such a showing would not be possible. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Titone, 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 appellant’s determination, dated April 2, 1975, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 23, 1975, which, inter alia, annulled the determination and directed appellant to grant an area variance to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Once petitioner demonstrated that he would suffer significant economic injury by the application to him of the area standards of section 24.72 (par [A], subpar [5]) of the Glen Cove Code of Ordinances, he was entitled to a variance unless appellant could show that the public health safety and welfare would be served by upholding the standards (see Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 NY2d 449, 454). This appellant failed to do. Indeed, the record on this appeal clearly indicates that such a showing would not be possible. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1022, 381 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koenig-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack