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

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

DecidedApril 21, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1098 (Marjen Realty Co., Inc. v. Reynolds) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1098, 26 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marjen-realty-co-inc-v-reynolds-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack