Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals

237 A.D.2d 445, 656 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2509

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 445 (Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of 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

Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 A.D.2d 445, 656 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pleasantville dated July 19, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester Counter (Nastasi, J.), entered November 1,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals correctly applied the balancing test contained in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) in denying their application for an area variance (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Malin v Leibowitz, 229 AD2d 580; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Accordingly, its determination was neither irrational nor unreasonable and was properly sustained by the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit (see, Aim Rent A Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Pleasantville dated July 19, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester Counter (Nastasi, J.), entered November 1,1995, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals correctly applied the balancing test contained in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) in denying their application for an area variance (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Malin v Leibowitz, 229 AD2d 580; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Accordingly, its determination was neither irrational nor unreasonable and was properly sustained by the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions lack merit (see, Aim Rent A Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 445, 656 N.Y.S.2d 877, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papanicolaou-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack