Matter of Rosenbush v. Keller

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Rosenbush v. Keller

2 N.E.2d 659, 271 N.Y. 282, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1198

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 26, 1936·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant was not entitled to resort to the remedy of mandamus without availing herself of the right to appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals. (Matter of Towers Management Corp. v. Thatcher, 271 N. Y. 94; decided May 19, 1936.) That Board is also empowered on a proper application to consider the argument here made on the basis of unnecessary hardship. (Amended Building Zone Resolution, § 21; see New York Code of Ordinances, Appendix B.)

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant was not entitled to resort to the remedy of mandamus without availing herself of the right to appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals. (Matter of Towers Management Corp. v. Thatcher, 271 N. Y. 94; decided May 19, 1936.) That Board is also empowered on a proper application to consider the argument here made on the basis of unnecessary hardship. (Amended Building Zone Resolution, § 21; see New York Code of Ordinances, Appendix B.)

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Matter of Rosenbush v. Keller, 2 N.E.2d 659, 271 N.Y. 282, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1198 (N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

2 N.E.2d 659 (Matter of Rosenbush v. Keller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related