Silveri v. Nolte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silveri v. Nolte

128 A.D.2d 711, 513 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44394

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 711 (Silveri v. Nolte) 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

Silveri v. Nolte, 128 A.D.2d 711, 513 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Oyster Bay Cove, dated May 10, 1984, which denied the petitioners’ application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated April 10, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that local Zoning Boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is limited to reviewing whether the action taken by the Board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 599; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, affd 67 NY2d 702). Given petitioner [712]*712Joseph Silveri’s background in real estate development and construction, and owing to the fact that he and his copetitioner previously applied for a variance for a structure which violated the rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance, the petitioners are certainly chargeable with knowledge of the applicable rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it cannot be said that the Zoning Board abused its discretion when it denied the petitioners’ requests for substantial rear yard set-back variances based upon their alleged good-faith reliance upon an unidentified contractor.

Finally, we note that the Board did not violate the petitioners’ due process rights when it reviewed pertinent Building Department records after giving the petitioners notice of its intention to do so. A Zoning Board is not required to follow formal rules of evidence (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190; Matter of Von Kohorn v Morrell, 9 NY2d 27, 32), and has the legal right to conduct its own investigation (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, supra). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, 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 Oyster Bay Cove, dated May 10, 1984, which denied the petitioners’ application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated April 10, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that local Zoning Boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is limited to reviewing whether the action taken by the Board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 599; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, affd 67 NY2d 702). Given petitioner [712]*712Joseph Silveri’s background in real estate development and construction, and owing to the fact that he and his copetitioner previously applied for a variance for a structure which violated the rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance, the petitioners are certainly chargeable with knowledge of the applicable rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it cannot be said that the Zoning Board abused its discretion when it denied the petitioners’ requests for substantial rear yard set-back variances based upon their alleged good-faith reliance upon an unidentified contractor.

Finally, we note that the Board did not violate the petitioners’ due process rights when it reviewed pertinent Building Department records after giving the petitioners notice of its intention to do so. A Zoning Board is not required to follow formal rules of evidence (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190; Matter of Von Kohorn v Morrell, 9 NY2d 27, 32), and has the legal right to conduct its own investigation (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, supra). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 711, 513 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silveri-v-nolte-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack