MATTER OF WHEELER v. City of Elmira

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WHEELER v. City of Elmira

469 N.E.2d 515, 63 N.Y.2d 721, 480 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4580

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 469 N.E.2d 515 (MATTER OF WHEELER v. City of Elmira) 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 WHEELER v. City of Elmira, 469 N.E.2d 515, 63 N.Y.2d 721, 480 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4580 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in its memorandum. We add that petitioner’s papers: (1) do not reveal what the rental for the second floor apartment is; (2) seek to establish the maximum potential rental for a first floor apartment, if conversion is permitted, through the affidavit of an attorney which does not establish his status as an expert on real estate valuation; (3) fail to recognize that, because one- and two-family residences are permitted uses in a residential “A” district, conversion of the first floor to one apartment would require only a setback or area variance, not a use variance; and (4) do not establish that more than one apartment (which would require a use variance but would also increase the income) cannot be created in the 2,650 square feet of the first floor.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), 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 order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in its memorandum. We add that petitioner’s papers: (1) do not reveal what the rental for the second floor apartment is; (2) seek to establish the maximum potential rental for a first floor apartment, if conversion is permitted, through the affidavit of an attorney which does not establish his status as an expert on real estate valuation; (3) fail to recognize that, because one- and two-family residences are permitted uses in a residential “A” district, conversion of the first floor to one apartment would require only a setback or area variance, not a use variance; and (4) do not establish that more than one apartment (which would require a use variance but would also increase the income) cannot be created in the 2,650 square feet of the first floor.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 N.E.2d 515, 63 N.Y.2d 721, 480 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wheeler-v-city-of-elmira-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack