Murphy v. Incorporated Village

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Incorporated Village

193 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4674

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

DecidedMay 10, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 680 (Murphy v. Incorporated Village) 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

Murphy v. Incorporated Village, 193 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, dated July 26, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated February 5, 1991, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Despite the petitioner’s contentions, we find that the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport denying the application for a variance was based on substantial evidence in the record and was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598, 608).

[681]*681We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find that they are without merit. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the petition. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Joy, 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 Incorporated Village of Freeport, dated July 26, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated February 5, 1991, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Despite the petitioner’s contentions, we find that the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport denying the application for a variance was based on substantial evidence in the record and was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598, 608).

[681]*681We have considered the petitioner’s remaining arguments and find that they are without merit. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the petition. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-incorporated-village-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack