Marjen Realty Co., Inc. v. Reynolds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marjen Realty Co., Inc. v. Reynolds

261 A.D. 1098, 26 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8958

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 21, 1941·Published

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Appeal from order reversing a determination of the board of appeals of the Incorporated Village of East Rockaway, which determination denied respondent’s application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, and granting a variance and directing the issuance of a building permit. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, proceeding dismissed and the decision of the board of appeals reinstated and confirmed. The record before the board does not contain a showing that respondent’s parcel of land may not be profitably utilized for a conforming use. There was no formal or informal proof of this character from a qualified person. (People ex rel. Fordham M. R. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280, 287; Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 id. 71.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act. Appeal from order reversing a determination of the board of appeals of the Incorporated Village of East Rockaway, which determination denied respondent’s application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, and granting a variance and directing the issuance of a building permit. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, proceeding dismissed and the decision of the board of appeals reinstated and confirmed. The record before the board does not contain a showing that respondent’s parcel of land may not be profitably utilized for a conforming use. There was no formal or informal proof of this character from a qualified person. (People ex rel. Fordham M. R. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280, 287; Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 id. 71.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Marjen Realty Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 261 A.D. 1098, 26 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

261 A.D. 1098 (Marjen Realty Co., Inc. v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related