South Path Realty Corp. v. Howe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

South Path Realty Corp. v. Howe

34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5186

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

DecidedApril 6, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 647 (South Path Realty Corp. v. Howe) 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

South Path Realty Corp. v. Howe, 34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s rescission of three building permits, petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 14, 1969, as denied the application as to two of the permits. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Although, in our opinion, Special Term erred in treating the structures of the contemplated garden apartment development as distinct units instead of as an integrated whole (see City of Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163; Matter of Harris v. Coffey, 6 A D 2d 898; Telimar Homes v. Miller, 14 A D 2d 586), it is nevertheless our view that Special Term properly denied the application as to two of the three building permits. In our opinion, the initial representation made by petitioner in applying for a change of zoning, that the proposed project would not exceed 60 units, was a material one, and respondent was not estopped from seeking to hold petitioner to its original statement of intent. Accordingly, respondent, having acted promptly, was justified in requesting a halt in construction and thereafter revoking the two permits which Special Term has refused to restore (cf. Town of Greenburgh v. Buser, 285 App. Div. 1090). Christ, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review respondent’s rescission of three building permits, petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 14, 1969, as denied the application as to two of the permits. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Although, in our opinion, Special Term erred in treating the structures of the contemplated garden apartment development as distinct units instead of as an integrated whole (see City of Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163; Matter of Harris v. Coffey, 6 A D 2d 898; Telimar Homes v. Miller, 14 A D 2d 586), it is nevertheless our view that Special Term properly denied the application as to two of the three building permits. In our opinion, the initial representation made by petitioner in applying for a change of zoning, that the proposed project would not exceed 60 units, was a material one, and respondent was not estopped from seeking to hold petitioner to its original statement of intent. Accordingly, respondent, having acted promptly, was justified in requesting a halt in construction and thereafter revoking the two permits which Special Term has refused to restore (cf. Town of Greenburgh v. Buser, 285 App. Div. 1090). Christ, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 647, 309 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-path-realty-corp-v-howe-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack