Sievers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sievers v. City of New York

182 A.D.2d 580

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 580 (Sievers v. City of New York) 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

Sievers v. City of New York, 182 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 1991, which denied the petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination revoking a building permit for erection of a sign on petitioner’s premises and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that respondents’ determination that the sign in question promoting Newport cigarettes is an advertising sign that cannot be considered accessory to a gasoline service station under the Zoning Resolution is rationally based, and that the consequent revocation of the building permit to erect the sign was not arbitrary or capricious. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the building permit could not be revoked without a hearing, the only question raised, as this Court held in the prior appeal in this matter, being one of law (Matter of Sievers v City of N. Y. Dept, of Bldgs., 146 AD2d 473). Were there issues of fact to be resolved requiring a hearing, the petition would have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by taking a timely appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals (see, Matter of Perrotta v City of New York, 107 AD2d 320, 324, affd for reasons stated 66 NY2d 859). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered February 8, 1991, which denied the petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination revoking a building permit for erection of a sign on petitioner’s premises and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS court that respondents’ determination that the sign in question promoting Newport cigarettes is an advertising sign that cannot be considered accessory to a gasoline service station under the Zoning Resolution is rationally based, and that the consequent revocation of the building permit to erect the sign was not arbitrary or capricious. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the building permit could not be revoked without a hearing, the only question raised, as this Court held in the prior appeal in this matter, being one of law (Matter of Sievers v City of N. Y. Dept, of Bldgs., 146 AD2d 473). Were there issues of fact to be resolved requiring a hearing, the petition would have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by taking a timely appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals (see, Matter of Perrotta v City of New York, 107 AD2d 320, 324, affd for reasons stated 66 NY2d 859). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sievers-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack