Scimeca v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scimeca v. Board of Zoning Appeals

41 A.D.2d 836, 342 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825

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

DecidedApril 2, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 836 (Scimeca v. Board of Zoning 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

Scimeca v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 41 A.D.2d 836, 342 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CP-LR to review a determination- of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals, dated February 8, 1972, which granted an area variance application by respondents Bdlu Custom Builders, Inc., and Anthony and Claudette Falco, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 28, 1972, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs jointly to respondents appearing separately. Contrary to the view of the Special Term, it is our opinion that petitioners Scimeca had standing .to bring this proceeding. However, we believe that Special Term correctly held that on the merits the proceeding should be dismissed. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CP-LR to review a determination- of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals, dated February 8, 1972, which granted an area variance application by respondents Bdlu Custom Builders, Inc., and Anthony and Claudette Falco, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 28, 1972, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs jointly to respondents appearing separately. Contrary to the view of the Special Term, it is our opinion that petitioners Scimeca had standing .to bring this proceeding. However, we believe that Special Term correctly held that on the merits the proceeding should be dismissed. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 836, 342 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scimeca-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-nyappdiv-1973.