Merritt v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merritt v. Duffy

288 A.D.2d 476, 732 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11415

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 476 (Merritt v. Duffy) 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

Merritt v. Duffy, 288 A.D.2d 476, 732 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown, dated November 17, 1999, which denied the petitioner’s application for certain variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated September 21, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination to deny the petitioner’s application for area variances, on the ground that the application was really for use variances and that the petitioner failed to meet the criteria for such variances, was neither illegal, arbitrary and capricious, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Natale v Duffy, 285 AD2d 554; Matter of Sullivan v Duffy, 283 AD2d 583). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown, dated November 17, 1999, which denied the petitioner’s application for certain variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated September 21, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination to deny the petitioner’s application for area variances, on the ground that the application was really for use variances and that the petitioner failed to meet the criteria for such variances, was neither illegal, arbitrary and capricious, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Natale v Duffy, 285 AD2d 554; Matter of Sullivan v Duffy, 283 AD2d 583). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 476, 732 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-duffy-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack