Ostrove v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ostrove v. Cohen

269 A.D. 1054, 58 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 1054 (Ostrove v. Cohen) 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

Ostrove v. Cohen, 269 A.D. 1054, 58 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for a review of the determination of the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach in granting the application of Alice G. Murtha for a variance to enable her to change her one-family house to a two-family house in a Residence A District, in which the latter use is prohibited. Determination annulled, with $50 costs and disbursements, payable by the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, and the application for such variance denied. There was no proof of “ practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships ” within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 24 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the absence of such proof, it was improper to allow the variance. A general restriction may not be destroyed u * * * by piece-meal exemption of pieces of land equally subject to the hardship created in the restriction * * The remedy in such case is to procure a change in the zoning ordinance in the area. (Matter of Levy V. Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 267 N. Y. 347, 353-354; Matter of Von Elm V. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 258 App. Div. 989.) Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [See 270 App. Div. 818.]

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for a review of the determination of the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach in granting the application of Alice G. Murtha for a variance to enable her to change her one-family house to a two-family house in a Residence A District, in which the latter use is prohibited. Determination annulled, with $50 costs and disbursements, payable by the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, and the application for such variance denied. There was no proof of “ practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships ” within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 24 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the absence of such proof, it was improper to allow the variance. A general restriction may not be destroyed u * * * by piece-meal exemption of pieces of land equally subject to the hardship created in the restriction * * The remedy in such case is to procure a change in the zoning ordinance in the area. (Matter of Levy V. Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 267 N. Y. 347, 353-354; Matter of Von Elm V. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Hempstead, 258 App. Div. 989.) Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [See 270 App. Div. 818.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 1054, 58 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostrove-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack