Stanco v. Halperin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanco v. Halperin

285 A.D. 815, 136 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5692

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 815 (Stanco v. Halperin) 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

Stanco v. Halperin, 285 A.D. 815, 136 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner owns a parcel of property in the village of Roslyn Harbor, on which her husband has conducted a nursery business since 1942. On March 21, 1950, the property was rezoned to a “ Residence C District.” An application was thereafter filed for a permit to erect a building on the property to be used in connection with the nursery business. The permit was denied. At the hearing before the board of appeals for a variance to permit the erection of the building, petitioner testified that the building was to be used in connection with her husband’s nursery and contracting business. The board of appeals denied the application for the variance on findings that the property is usable for purposes permitted in a residence district, that the erection of the building would alter the essential character of the locality, and that there is insufficient proof of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. In an article 78 proceeding to review the [816]*816determination of the board, Special Term annulled the determination and directed the issuance of the permit on the ground that the property cannot be profitably improved with one-family dwellings. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and determination of the board of appeals reinstated and confirmed. The evidence before the board is sufficient to warrant the denial of the variance. Assuming that the property cannot be profitably improved with one-family dwellings, the proof is insufficient to show that the property is not usable for any of the purposes permitted in a “ Residence G District.” One of the purposes permitted in such district is “Nursery (horticultural) provided that no buildings or structures shall be erected on the lot other than a single family dwelling, its accessory buildings or structures.” Nolan, P. J., MaeCrate, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Petitioner owns a parcel of property in the village of Roslyn Harbor, on which her husband has conducted a nursery business since 1942. On March 21, 1950, the property was rezoned to a “ Residence C District.” An application was thereafter filed for a permit to erect a building on the property to be used in connection with the nursery business. The permit was denied. At the hearing before the board of appeals for a variance to permit the erection of the building, petitioner testified that the building was to be used in connection with her husband’s nursery and contracting business. The board of appeals denied the application for the variance on findings that the property is usable for purposes permitted in a residence district, that the erection of the building would alter the essential character of the locality, and that there is insufficient proof of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. In an article 78 proceeding to review the [816]*816determination of the board, Special Term annulled the determination and directed the issuance of the permit on the ground that the property cannot be profitably improved with one-family dwellings. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and determination of the board of appeals reinstated and confirmed. The evidence before the board is sufficient to warrant the denial of the variance. Assuming that the property cannot be profitably improved with one-family dwellings, the proof is insufficient to show that the property is not usable for any of the purposes permitted in a “ Residence G District.” One of the purposes permitted in such district is “Nursery (horticultural) provided that no buildings or structures shall be erected on the lot other than a single family dwelling, its accessory buildings or structures.” Nolan, P. J., MaeCrate, Schmidt, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 815, 136 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanco-v-halperin-nyappdiv-1955.