Rollins v. Armstrong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rollins v. Armstrong

226 A.D. 687, 233 N.Y.S. 359

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D. 687 (Rollins v. Armstrong) 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

Rollins v. Armstrong, 226 A.D. 687, 233 N.Y.S. 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

‡ — Peremptory mandamus order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs. Respondent proposes to erect upon his lot a building with the entrance wall facing the rear of the lot and the opposite or rear wall facing the street. He also proposes to make such wall facing the street thirteen feet higher than the Zoning Ordinance permits the “ front ” wall of a building in that district to be, although the wall of the entrance side, facing the rear of the lot, is within the permitted height. The height of the building must be measured from the street side of the building. A permit to erect a building to be constructed as planned violates the Zoning Ordinance and may be revoked by appellant. (Building Code of the City of Yonkers, art. I, § 4, subd. 7.) The permit having been illegally granted, no vested right of respondent has been violated. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seeger, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

Affd., 251 N. Y. 349.

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

‡ — Peremptory mandamus order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs. Respondent proposes to erect upon his lot a building with the entrance wall facing the rear of the lot and the opposite or rear wall facing the street. He also proposes to make such wall facing the street thirteen feet higher than the Zoning Ordinance permits the “ front ” wall of a building in that district to be, although the wall of the entrance side, facing the rear of the lot, is within the permitted height. The height of the building must be measured from the street side of the building. A permit to erect a building to be constructed as planned violates the Zoning Ordinance and may be revoked by appellant. (Building Code of the City of Yonkers, art. I, § 4, subd. 7.) The permit having been illegally granted, no vested right of respondent has been violated. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Seeger, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

Affd., 251 N. Y. 349.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D. 687, 233 N.Y.S. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-v-armstrong-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack