Scotto-DeSantis v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scotto-DeSantis v. Board of Zoning Appeals

302 A.D.2d 395, 754 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 815

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 Port Washington North, dated January 31, 2001, which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered September 12, 2001, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination 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; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 n 2; Matter of Kattke v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 200 AD2d 746, 747). Florio, 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 Port Washington North, dated January 31, 2001, which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered September 12, 2001, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the determination 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; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 n 2; Matter of Kattke v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 200 AD2d 746, 747). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Scotto-DeSantis v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 302 A.D.2d 395, 754 N.Y.S.2d 573, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 815 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 395 (Scotto-DeSantis v. Board of Zoning Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related