Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead

277 A.D.2d 889

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 1950·Published

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, order denying motion of appellants to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. The legislative delegation of power to the zoning board of appeals to grant variances (Town Law, § 267; Building Zone Ordinance of Town of Horth Hempstead, art. XVII, §§ 174.0,174.8) was not unlawful. It was not a delegation of power without an accompanying prescription of standard for guidance. (See Matter of Thomas V. Board of Standards & Appeals, 263 App. Div. 352, revd. on other grounds 290 H. V. 109, and authorities there cited; Rathkopf on the Law of Zoning and Planning [2d ed.], § 20, p. 143 et seq.) The board had original jurisdiction to entertain the application for variance. (Matter of Michox V. Griffin, 274 App. Div. 792, revd. on other grounds 298 H. Y. 365.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [197 Misc. 621.]

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment, order denying motion of appellants to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs. The legislative delegation of power to the zoning board of appeals to grant variances (Town Law, § 267; Building Zone Ordinance of Town of Horth Hempstead, art. XVII, §§ 174.0,174.8) was not unlawful. It was not a delegation of power without an accompanying prescription of standard for guidance. (See Matter of Thomas V. Board of Standards & Appeals, 263 App. Div. 352, revd. on other grounds 290 H. V. 109, and authorities there cited; Rathkopf on the Law of Zoning and Planning [2d ed.], § 20, p. 143 et seq.) The board had original jurisdiction to entertain the application for variance. (Matter of Michox V. Griffin, 274 App. Div. 792, revd. on other grounds 298 H. Y. 365.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [197 Misc. 621.]

Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead, 277 A.D.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

277 A.D.2d 889 (Roosevelt Field, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related