Livadas v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livadas v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

120 A.D.2d 668, 502 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56772

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 668 (Livadas 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

Livadas v. Board of Zoning & Appeals, 120 A.D.2d 668, 502 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Plandome Manor, dated December 8, 1982, which denied the petitioner’s application for certain variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered December 5, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding on the merits and ordered the petitioner to comply with the decisions of the respondent Board.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We find that the denial of the requested variances was supported by substantial evidence and was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; Matter of Martirano v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 AD2d 820). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Plandome Manor, dated December 8, 1982, which denied the petitioner’s application for certain variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered December 5, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding on the merits and ordered the petitioner to comply with the decisions of the respondent Board.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We find that the denial of the requested variances was supported by substantial evidence and was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; Matter of Martirano v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 AD2d 820). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 668, 502 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livadas-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack