Quality of Life v. Board of Standards & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quality of Life v. Board of Standards & Appeals

304 A.D.2d 832, 757 N.Y.S.2d 886

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

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 832 (Quality of Life 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

Quality of Life v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 304 A.D.2d 832, 757 N.Y.S.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York dated March 28, 2002, which, after a hearing, granted a special use permit and a bulk variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 [1977]; cf. Matter of Montalbano v Silva, 204 AD2d 457 [1994]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York dated March 28, 2002, which, after a hearing, granted a special use permit and a bulk variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 6, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 [1977]; cf. Matter of Montalbano v Silva, 204 AD2d 457 [1994]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Smith, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 832, 757 N.Y.S.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quality-of-life-v-board-of-standards-appeals-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack