McCabe v. Minicozzi

227 A.D.2d 487, 643 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 487 (McCabe v. Minicozzi) 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
McCabe v. Minicozzi, 227 A.D.2d 487, 643 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lindenhurst dated May 17, 1993, which granted an application for a use variance to permit storage of damaged and/or dismantled vehicles, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated January 23, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the appellants’ petition to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lindenhurst (hereinafter the ZB A) on the basis that the appellants were not aggrieved, and thus, lacked standing (see, Village Law § 7-712-c). The record establishes that the appellants failed to sufficiently demonstrate that they "sustained special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” as a result of the determination of the ZBA (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 413), or that their respective properties were in "close proximity” to the subject parcel entitling them to an inference of injury sufficient to provide standing (see, Matter of Darlington v City of Ithaca, 202 AD2d 831; Matter of Casement v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 162 AD2d 685; Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 AD2d 842).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Balletta, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rockland Hospitality Associates, LLC v. Paris
302 A.D.2d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rediker v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown
280 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Williams v. Hertzwig
251 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Scannell v. Town Board of Smithtown
250 A.D.2d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 487, 643 N.Y.S.2d 128, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccabe-v-minicozzi-nyappdiv-1996.