Maple Plaza Development, Inc. v. Fink

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maple Plaza Development, Inc. v. Fink

19 A.D.3d 422, 795 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedJune 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 422 (Maple Plaza Development, Inc. v. Fink) 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

Maple Plaza Development, Inc. v. Fink, 19 A.D.3d 422, 795 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals, dated April 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for area and use variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A local zoning board has broad discretion in considering variance applications, and the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the denial of the petitioner’s application for variances by the Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals had a rational basis, and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Mastro, 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 Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals, dated April 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for area and use variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A local zoning board has broad discretion in considering variance applications, and the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the denial of the petitioner’s application for variances by the Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals had a rational basis, and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 422, 795 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maple-plaza-development-inc-v-fink-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack