Schafler v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schafler v. Campbell

267 A.D.2d 314, 699 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12869

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1999·Published

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Floral Park, dated February 17, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application, inter alia, for a determination that the batting cage on their property was not a structure or, in the alternative, for a zoning variance to allow a batting cage to be created and maintained on their property, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered November 24, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the batting cage constitutes a structure (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Under the circumstances of this case, the Board of Appeals properly denied the application for a zoning variance (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374). Ritter, J. P., Mc-Ginity, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Floral Park, dated February 17, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application, inter alia, for a determination that the batting cage on their property was not a structure or, in the alternative, for a zoning variance to allow a batting cage to be created and maintained on their property, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered November 24, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the batting cage constitutes a structure (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Under the circumstances of this case, the Board of Appeals properly denied the application for a zoning variance (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374). Ritter, J. P., Mc-Ginity, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Schafler v. Campbell, 267 A.D.2d 314, 699 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 314 (Schafler v. Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related