Mendozza v. Board of Zoning Appeals

30 A.D.2d 863, 292 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 22, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 863 (Mendozza v. Board of Zoning Appeals) 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
Mendozza v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 30 A.D.2d 863, 292 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 31, 1967, which (1) annulled appellant’s determination, made after a rehearing, reversing its previous decision, which had granted a variance, and denying such variance; and (2) reinstated the building permit which had been issued. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to appellant for a further hearing and for the making of specific findings, as hereinafter indicated. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the rehearing of petitioner’s application for a variance was properly held pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 267 of the Town Law; and, on the basis of the amended zoning ordinance and the facts disclosed at the rehearing, appellant could properly reverse its previous grant of a variance and revoke the previously-issued building permit, unless petitioner had acquired a vested right to the variance and building permit by the doing of substantial work and the incurring of substantial expense, in good faith reliance upon the variance and building permit prior to the amendment of the ordinance. However, the record does not adequately disclose whether petitioner did or did not acquire such vested right; and a further hearing on that issue is therefore required. After such rehearing, appellant should make specific findings as to all the issues involved in this variance application, and not merely those relating to the acquisition of a vested right, since no adequate findings were made when appellant rendered its decision denying the variance after the rehearing. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Waterways Dev. Corp. v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals
126 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Pantelidis v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals
43 A.D.3d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Tohr Industries Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
549 N.E.2d 142 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
James v. Town of New Hartford
49 A.D.2d 247 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 863, 292 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendozza-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-nyappdiv-1968.