Solomon v. Murdock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solomon v. Murdock

10 A.D.2d 648, 199 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 648 (Solomon v. Murdock) 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

Solomon v. Murdock, 10 A.D.2d 648, 199 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to review a determination o£ the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York which granted an application for a variance, the appeal is from an order which, inter alla, dismissed the petition and confirmed the determination. The determination sought to be reviewed granted an application under subdivisions (£), (h) and (i) of section 7 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York for a variance permitting the erection and operation of a gasoline service station and permitting the extension of an existing building for specified accessory uses. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ.

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

In a proceeding to review a determination o£ the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York which granted an application for a variance, the appeal is from an order which, inter alla, dismissed the petition and confirmed the determination. The determination sought to be reviewed granted an application under subdivisions (£), (h) and (i) of section 7 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York for a variance permitting the erection and operation of a gasoline service station and permitting the extension of an existing building for specified accessory uses. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 648, 199 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-murdock-nyappdiv-1960.