MATTER OF GEBBIE v. Mammina

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF GEBBIE v. Mammina

914 N.E.2d 142, 13 N.Y.3d 728

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 27, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 914 N.E.2d 142 (MATTER OF GEBBIE v. Mammina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF GEBBIE v. Mammina, 914 N.E.2d 142, 13 N.Y.3d 728 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

In view of the broad discretion afforded zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]), the denial of petitioner’s application for area variances to subdivide his lot to create two nonconforming lots had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The Board of Zoning Appeals rationally balanced and weighed the requisite statutory factors, and the Appellate Division erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the agency (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

In view of the broad discretion afforded zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]), the denial of petitioner’s application for area variances to subdivide his lot to create two nonconforming lots had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The Board of Zoning Appeals rationally balanced and weighed the requisite statutory factors, and the Appellate Division erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the agency (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

914 N.E.2d 142, 13 N.Y.3d 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gebbie-v-mammina-ny-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack