Orlando v. Board of Standards & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orlando v. Board of Standards & Appeals

169 A.D.2d 726, 565 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 726 (Orlando v. Board of Standards & 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

Orlando v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 169 A.D.2d 726, 565 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, dated August 9, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 7, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[727]*727The respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York determined, inter alia, that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the existence of unique physical conditions, as required by New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 (a) for the issuance of a variance. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board’s finding was supported by substantial evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Klein, 51 NY2d 963; Matter of Marchese v Koch, 120 AD2d 590; Matter of Shiner v Board of Estimate, 95 AD2d 831).

In light of this determination, it is not necessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and O’Brien, 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 respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, dated August 9, 1988, which denied the petitioner’s application for a variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), entered April 7, 1989, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

[727]*727The respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York determined, inter alia, that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the existence of unique physical conditions, as required by New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 (a) for the issuance of a variance. Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board’s finding was supported by substantial evidence and was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Klein, 51 NY2d 963; Matter of Marchese v Koch, 120 AD2d 590; Matter of Shiner v Board of Estimate, 95 AD2d 831).

In light of this determination, it is not necessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 726, 565 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orlando-v-board-of-standards-appeals-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack