Simonsen v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simonsen v. Zoning Board of Appeals

262 A.D.2d 326, 689 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 326 (Simonsen 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

Simonsen v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 262 A.D.2d 326, 689 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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 May 5, 1997, which granted the application of Catherine Netterscheim and Peter Netterscheim for a variance, the appeal and the cross appeal are from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered April 28, 1998, which granted the petition to the extent of remitting the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for reconsideration of the application.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

No appeal lies as of right from a nonfinal order in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Matter of Okebiyi v Cortines, 239 AD2d 421). None of the parties sought leave to appeal and we decline to grant leave (see, Anagnos v Hangac, 239 AD2d 533). Accordingly, the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, 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 May 5, 1997, which granted the application of Catherine Netterscheim and Peter Netterscheim for a variance, the appeal and the cross appeal are from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered April 28, 1998, which granted the petition to the extent of remitting the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for reconsideration of the application.

Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

No appeal lies as of right from a nonfinal order in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Matter of Okebiyi v Cortines, 239 AD2d 421). None of the parties sought leave to appeal and we decline to grant leave (see, Anagnos v Hangac, 239 AD2d 533). Accordingly, the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 326, 689 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonsen-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack