Miller v. Ward

New York Court of Appeals

Miller v. Ward

415 N.E.2d 961, 51 N.Y.2d 887, 434 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2888

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 11, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 415 N.E.2d 961 (Miller v. Ward) 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

Miller v. Ward, 415 N.E.2d 961, 51 N.Y.2d 887, 434 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2888 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of that court.

We find no merit to the contention that in denying appellants’ application for a special permit to conduct soil mining the zoning board of appeals was precluded from considering evidence of the prospective inability of the applicant to comply with the operating standards prescribed in the zoning ordinance. There is evidence in the record to support the board’s determination that the elaborated standards of the ordinance had not been met in full, and there is no merit to appellants’ contention that the board’s decision was improperly based on material outside the record.

[889]*889Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

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 the memorandum opinion of that court.

We find no merit to the contention that in denying appellants’ application for a special permit to conduct soil mining the zoning board of appeals was precluded from considering evidence of the prospective inability of the applicant to comply with the operating standards prescribed in the zoning ordinance. There is evidence in the record to support the board’s determination that the elaborated standards of the ordinance had not been met in full, and there is no merit to appellants’ contention that the board’s decision was improperly based on material outside the record.

[889]*889Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 N.E.2d 961, 51 N.Y.2d 887, 434 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-ward-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack