Philipps v. Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Philipps v. Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals

278 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 496 (Philipps v. Town of Washington 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

Philipps v. Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals, 278 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 20, 1998, denying the petitioners’ application to revoke a certificate of occupancy issued to the respondent M. Heidi Otto, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 13, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of a zoning board determination is limited, and the determination must be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598, 599; Matter of Clarkson Realty Holding Corp. v Scheyer, 172. AD2d 521, 522; Matter of Perger v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 146 AD2d 698). In this case, substantial evidence was presented at the hearing to establish that in 1991, the respondent Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals properly granted frontage and width-area variances to the respondent M. Heidi Otto. Thus, the building was properly constructed and the certificate of occupancy was correctly issued.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, 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 Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 20, 1998, denying the petitioners’ application to revoke a certificate of occupancy issued to the respondent M. Heidi Otto, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 13, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judicial review of a zoning board determination is limited, and the determination must be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598, 599; Matter of Clarkson Realty Holding Corp. v Scheyer, 172. AD2d 521, 522; Matter of Perger v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 146 AD2d 698). In this case, substantial evidence was presented at the hearing to establish that in 1991, the respondent Town of Washington Zoning Board of Appeals properly granted frontage and width-area variances to the respondent M. Heidi Otto. Thus, the building was properly constructed and the certificate of occupancy was correctly issued.

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 496, 718 N.Y.S.2d 91, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philipps-v-town-of-washington-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack