Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach

420 N.E.2d 969, 53 N.Y.2d 623, 438 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2294

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 1981·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division dated January 22, 1979 having been reviewed, the order of that court dated July 7, 1980 should be affirmed, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the board of appeals that there had been such a change in use of the subject premises as to cause it to lose its nonconforming status. There was proof that what was in essence a seasonal summer hotel had been converted to a year-round facility for senior citizens with a consequent significant increase in demand for municipal services. Nor does this case present any occasion to make an exception to the general rule that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to preclude a municipality from enforcing the provisions of its zoning ordinance.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division dated January 22, 1979 having been reviewed, the order of that court dated July 7, 1980 should be affirmed, with costs.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the board of appeals that there had been such a change in use of the subject premises as to cause it to lose its nonconforming status. There was proof that what was in essence a seasonal summer hotel had been converted to a year-round facility for senior citizens with a consequent significant increase in demand for municipal services. Nor does this case present any occasion to make an exception to the general rule that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to preclude a municipality from enforcing the provisions of its zoning ordinance.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, 420 N.E.2d 969, 53 N.Y.2d 623, 438 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2294 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

420 N.E.2d 969 (Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related