Pansa v. Damiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pansa v. Damiano

21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3179

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 974 (Pansa v. Damiano) 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

Pansa v. Damiano, 21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon remission from the Court of Appeals, order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Our former decision was based upon a finding that the appellants had not timely taken their appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals herein (14 N Y 2d 356), we turn to the other issues in the case. We find that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which held that the space- between the west wall of the new structure and the east line of appellants’ property is a side yard and is not a rear yard within the meaning of section 4 of article VII of the Zoning Ordinance, is arbitrary and should be annulled. In all other respects the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals is confirmed. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term dismissing the petition.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

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

Upon remission from the Court of Appeals, order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Our former decision was based upon a finding that the appellants had not timely taken their appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeals herein (14 N Y 2d 356), we turn to the other issues in the case. We find that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals, which held that the space- between the west wall of the new structure and the east line of appellants’ property is a side yard and is not a rear yard within the meaning of section 4 of article VII of the Zoning Ordinance, is arbitrary and should be annulled. In all other respects the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals is confirmed. (Appeal from order of Oneida Special Term dismissing the petition.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 974, 252 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pansa-v-damiano-nyappdiv-1964.