Long Island Lighting Co. v. Voehl

15 A.D.2d 512, 222 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 11, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 512 (Long Island Lighting Co. v. Voehl) 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
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Voehl, 15 A.D.2d 512, 222 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

The proof establishes, and the board has found, that a substation of the nature proposed is needed to enable the petitioner to provide adequate electric service to its customers. The zone in which the site of the proposed substation is located is the least restricted district in the village. In said zone, there are permitted, as a matter of right, such uses (among others) as hand laundries, dry-cleaning establishments, shirt laundries, carpenter shops, cabinet making shops, furniture and upholstery shops, metal working establishments, machine shops, blacksmith shops, tinsmith shops, leather working establishments and testing laboratories. Adjacent to the site of the proposed substation, there are located two gasoline service stations and an auto body repair and paint shop. The records kept by petitioner since 1953 indicate that during the entire period covered by such records, no personal injury has occurred in any of the 135 electric distribution substations maintained by petitioner. Further, the record herein contains no showing of an injurious effect due to the slight hum which would emanate from the transformer in the proposed substation. In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the denial by the Board of Appeals of the application for the subject special permit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Village Zoning Ordinance, was unwarranted (Matter of Long Is. Lighting Co. v. Griffin, 272 App. Div. 551, affd. 297 N. Y. 897; Matter of Long Is. Lighting Co. v. City of Long Beach, 280 App. Div. 823, affd. 305 N. Y. 880). Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. [27 Misc 2d 943.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Summit School v. Neugent
82 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.2d 512, 222 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-island-lighting-co-v-voehl-nyappdiv-1961.