Lunden v. Petito

30 A.D.2d 820, 292 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 820 (Lunden v. Petito) 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
Lunden v. Petito, 30 A.D.2d 820, 292 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, each in one of the two above entitled proceedings, and dated August 7, 1967, reversed, on the law, without costs, and petitions dismissed, solely upon the ground that the issues have become moot (cf. Matter of Jordan Cemetery Assn. v. Cemetery Bd. of State of N. 7., 19 A D 2d 540). No questions of fact have been considered. These proceedings were instituted to review two determinations by the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay, the first (in the first entitled proceeding) granting an application by Raymond J. Amendola and Jennie Amendola for a special exception required by the Town’s Building Zone Ordinance, then in effect, to permit the erection of a multiple dwelling, and the second (in the second entitled proceeding) rescinding the first and denying the application. The Special Term annulled both determinations and remitted the matter to the Town Board for rehearing and reconsideration. Subsequent to said judgments and the taking of these appeals, the ordinance was amended so as to prohibit completely the erection of multiple dwellings in the use district in which the property was located. An appellate court must decide a case on the basis of the law as it exists at the time of its decision; the Amendolas had no vested right to the erection of a multiple dwelling at the time of the amendment of the zoning ordinance; and the ordinance as it now exists is controlling and prohibits the use which they seek to have approved (cf. Matter of Haussman v. Oatley, 285 App. Div. 832; Matter of Town Bd. of Town of Huntington v. Plonski, 13 A D 2d 704, affd. 10 N Y 2d 1035; Matter of Atlantic Beach Towers Constr. Co. v. Michaelis, 21 A D 2d 875; Matter of Paliotto v. Dickerson, 22 A D 2d 929). Accordingly, we do not reach the issues respecting the propriety of the Town Board’s actions either in granting or denying the application for the special exception. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Santora v. Town of Poughkeepsie Zoning Board of Appeals
55 A.D.3d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Layton v. Howard County Board of Appeals
922 A.2d 576 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
492 A.2d 508 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Appelblom v. Appelblom
66 A.D.2d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
C & S Golf & Country Club Corp. v. Stevens
60 A.D.2d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Congregation Gates of Prayer v. Board of Appeals
48 A.D.2d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 820, 292 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunden-v-petito-nyappdiv-1968.