North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of North Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of North Syracuse

136 A.D.2d 942, 524 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1466

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 1988·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term applied an incorrect standard in determining that the special use permit should have been granted (see, Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd., 1 NY2d 508; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn, v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190). Nonetheless, a reversal is not required because, under the standard enunciated in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi (68 NY2d 583), a religious institution enjoys a presumptively favored status with respect to the police powers sought to be protected by zoning laws.

Our examination of the reasons enumerated by the Village Board for denying petitioner a special use permit discloses that the rejection was unreasonable. No expert evidence was proffered concerning any detrimental effect on traffic or drainage (see, Matter of Garnatt Gravel Prods, v Town of Collins, 105 AD2d 1057). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Inglehart, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term applied an incorrect standard in determining that the special use permit should have been granted (see, Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd., 1 NY2d 508; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn, v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190). Nonetheless, a reversal is not required because, under the standard enunciated in Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi (68 NY2d 583), a religious institution enjoys a presumptively favored status with respect to the police powers sought to be protected by zoning laws.

Our examination of the reasons enumerated by the Village Board for denying petitioner a special use permit discloses that the rejection was unreasonable. No expert evidence was proffered concerning any detrimental effect on traffic or drainage (see, Matter of Garnatt Gravel Prods, v Town of Collins, 105 AD2d 1057). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Inglehart, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of North Syracuse, 136 A.D.2d 942, 524 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

136 A.D.2d 942 (North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of North Syracuse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related