Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic v. Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic v. Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals

262 A.D.2d 492, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 492 (Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic v. Town of Babylon 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

Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic v. Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals, 262 A.D.2d 492, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals, dated September 30, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to reconfigure existing space on its property as a child day-care center, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 30, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the petition and annulled the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that the denial of the petitioner’s application was arbitrary and capricious. The proposed day-care center is a permitted accessory use to the principal use of the petitioner’s property (see, Matter of Siegert v Luney, 111 AD2d 854; Matter of Unitarian Universalist Church v Shorten, 63 Misc 2d 978).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 respondent Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals, dated September 30, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to reconfigure existing space on its property as a child day-care center, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 30, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the petition and annulled the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that the denial of the petitioner’s application was arbitrary and capricious. The proposed day-care center is a permitted accessory use to the principal use of the petitioner’s property (see, Matter of Siegert v Luney, 111 AD2d 854; Matter of Unitarian Universalist Church v Shorten, 63 Misc 2d 978).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 492, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sisters-of-the-order-of-st-dominic-v-town-of-babylon-zoning-board-of-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack