Sorby v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sorby v. Zoning Board of Appeals

289 A.D.2d 410, 734 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12246

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 410 (Sorby 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

Sorby v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 289 A.D.2d 410, 734 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mount Pleasant, dated September 9,1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the respondent to issue the requested variances to the petitioners.

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

The record established that the relief sought by the petitioners would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, particularly since the majority of the homes in the area were built on substandard lots. Thus, the Zoning Board’s denial of the variances was not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 NY2d 105). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Cozier, 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 Mount Pleasant, dated September 9,1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the respondent to issue the requested variances to the petitioners.

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

The record established that the relief sought by the petitioners would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, particularly since the majority of the homes in the area were built on substandard lots. Thus, the Zoning Board’s denial of the variances was not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 NY2d 105). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 410, 734 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorby-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack