Matter of 111 Condominium v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of 111 Condominium v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of New York

139 A.D.3d 443, 29 N.Y.S.3d 181

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

DecidedMay 5, 2016

Docket1068 100198/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 443 (Matter of 111 Condominium v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of New York) 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

Matter of 111 Condominium v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 443, 29 N.Y.S.3d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 1, 2015, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (Board), dated January 14, 2014, which, as subsequently amended on February 5, 2014, granted, upon certain conditions, respondent Dalton Schools, Inc.’s application to amend a previously approved variance and special permit, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Board’s grant of a variance allowing Dalton to build an addition to its building does not constitute an ultra vires rezoning, since the variance would not change the essential character of the neighborhood (cf. Matter of Held v Giuliano, 46 AD2d 558, 559-560 [3d Dept 1975] [zoning board exceeded its authority in granting a variance permitting residential construction of lots with a greater density than allowed under a zoning ordinance]; Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 AD2d 58 [2d Dept 1970] [zoning board exceeded its powers when granting a variance permitting an individual to develop his land as a subdivision at odds with a zoning ordinance], affd 28 NY2d 608 [1971]). Both the Board and Supreme Court correctly applied the standard set forth in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi (68 NY2d 583 [1986]). The Board providently exercised its discretion in granting the variance and special permit, and its determination has a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440 [2000]).

*444 We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 1, 2015, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (Board), dated January 14, 2014, which, as subsequently amended on February 5, 2014, granted, upon certain conditions, respondent Dalton Schools, Inc.’s application to amend a previously approved variance and special permit, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Board’s grant of a variance allowing Dalton to build an addition to its building does not constitute an ultra vires rezoning, since the variance would not change the essential character of the neighborhood (cf. Matter of Held v Giuliano, 46 AD2d 558, 559-560 [3d Dept 1975] [zoning board exceeded its authority in granting a variance permitting residential construction of lots with a greater density than allowed under a zoning ordinance]; Van Deusen v Jackson, 35 AD2d 58 [2d Dept 1970] [zoning board exceeded its powers when granting a variance permitting an individual to develop his land as a subdivision at odds with a zoning ordinance], affd 28 NY2d 608 [1971]). Both the Board and Supreme Court correctly applied the standard set forth in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi (68 NY2d 583 [1986]). The Board providently exercised its discretion in granting the variance and special permit, and its determination has a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440 [2000]).

*444 We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 443, 29 N.Y.S.3d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-111-condominium-v-board-of-stds-appeals-of-the-city-of-new-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack