Sasso v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sasso v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook

302 A.D.2d 393, 754 N.Y.S.2d 573

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 2003·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, dated March 29, 2001, which, after a hear[394] ing, denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated November 29, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Lynbrook sufficiently set forth the specific facts on which it relied in making its determination (cf. Matter of Necker Pottick, Fox Run Woods Bldrs. Corp. v Duncan, 251 AD2d 333; Matter of Markowitz v Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 200 AD2d 673; Matter of Bowers v Aron, 142 AD2d 32).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florin, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Rivera, 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 Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, dated March 29, 2001, which, after a hear[394] ing, denied the petitioner’s application for a use variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated November 29, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Lynbrook sufficiently set forth the specific facts on which it relied in making its determination (cf. Matter of Necker Pottick, Fox Run Woods Bldrs. Corp. v Duncan, 251 AD2d 333; Matter of Markowitz v Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 200 AD2d 673; Matter of Bowers v Aron, 142 AD2d 32).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florin, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Sasso v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook, 302 A.D.2d 393, 754 N.Y.S.2d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 393 (Sasso v. Incorporated Village of Lynbrook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related