Sokolsky v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sokolsky v. Williams

54 A.D.2d 567, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13894

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 567 (Sokolsky v. Williams) 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

Sokolsky v. Williams, 54 A.D.2d 567, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals which, after a hearing, granted the intervenor-respondent’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 25, 1975, which (1) dismissed the petition and (2) confirmed the determination. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to intervenorrespondent Larkin. The record indicates that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Lewisboro, granting an area variance to the intervenor-respondent, was supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals which, after a hearing, granted the intervenor-respondent’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 25, 1975, which (1) dismissed the petition and (2) confirmed the determination. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to intervenorrespondent Larkin. The record indicates that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Lewisboro, granting an area variance to the intervenor-respondent, was supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing (see Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 567, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sokolsky-v-williams-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack