Samo Associates v. Scheyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samo Associates v. Scheyer

123 A.D.2d 703, 506 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60843

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 703 (Samo Associates v. Scheyer) 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

Samo Associates v. Scheyer, 123 A.D.2d 703, 506 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip dated January 29, 1985, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 8, 1985, as dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Justice Mangano has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents-respondents and the intervenors-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There was sufficient evidence upon the entire record to support the finding of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip that the nonconforming use of the property in question as a rooming house was begun before the establishment of the industrial district in which it was located and continued without an abandonment for a period of greater than one year. Further, it is clear that the Board did not recognize a nonconforming use for the store, but only did so for the rooming house. Special Term was correct when it upheld the Board’s decision and dismissed the proceeding (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270).

We have considered the appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Fiber and Spatt, 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 Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip dated January 29, 1985, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 8, 1985, as dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

Justice Mangano has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents-respondents and the intervenors-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

There was sufficient evidence upon the entire record to support the finding of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Islip that the nonconforming use of the property in question as a rooming house was begun before the establishment of the industrial district in which it was located and continued without an abandonment for a period of greater than one year. Further, it is clear that the Board did not recognize a nonconforming use for the store, but only did so for the rooming house. Special Term was correct when it upheld the Board’s decision and dismissed the proceeding (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270).

We have considered the appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 703, 506 N.Y.S.2d 959, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samo-associates-v-scheyer-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack