Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals

16 A.D.3d 591, 792 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2979

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 591 (Schneider 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

Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 16 A.D.3d 591, 792 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated June 19, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 6, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly sustained the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Zoning Board) denying the petitioner’s application for an area variance. The determination was rationally based and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 n 2 [1995]). Further, the determination of the Zoning Board was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated June 19, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 6, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly sustained the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Zoning Board) denying the petitioner’s application for an area variance. The determination was rationally based and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 n 2 [1995]). Further, the determination of the Zoning Board was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 591, 792 N.Y.S.2d 153, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack