RVC Associates v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RVC Associates v. Zoning Board of Appeals

240 A.D.2d 672, 659 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6844

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

DecidedJune 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 672 (RVC Associates 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

RVC Associates v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 240 A.D.2d 672, 659 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre, dated October 4, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances and that judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was supported by substantial evidence and is not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Kattke v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 200 AD2d 746; Matter of Scarsdale Ave. Equities Assocs. v Board of Appeals, 199 AD2d 397).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hardship that it alleged to have suffered was not due to the applicable zoning regulations, but rather was the result of imprudent financial decisions. Accordingly, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre properly denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance to relieve such self-created hardship (see, Matter of Long Is. Leasing Corp. v Casey, 138 AD2d 596; Matter of Carriage Works Enters, v Siegel, 118 AD2d 568). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre, dated October 4, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances and that judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was supported by substantial evidence and is not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Kattke v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 200 AD2d 746; Matter of Scarsdale Ave. Equities Assocs. v Board of Appeals, 199 AD2d 397).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the hardship that it alleged to have suffered was not due to the applicable zoning regulations, but rather was the result of imprudent financial decisions. Accordingly, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Rockville Centre properly denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance to relieve such self-created hardship (see, Matter of Long Is. Leasing Corp. v Casey, 138 AD2d 596; Matter of Carriage Works Enters, v Siegel, 118 AD2d 568). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 672, 659 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rvc-associates-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack