Stanley Manor, Inc. v. Glass

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanley Manor, Inc. v. Glass

54 A.D.2d 937, 388 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14806

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 937 (Stanley Manor, Inc. v. Glass) 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

Stanley Manor, Inc. v. Glass, 54 A.D.2d 937, 388 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondents’ determination, dated March 4, 1975 and made after a hearing, denying petitioner’s application for a variance, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 1, 1976, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Petitioner knew at the time the subject parcel was purchased that it was substandard. Whatever reliance petitioner placed upon the alleged practice of the department of buildings in issuing permits at that time does not overcome the rational basis for respondents’ determination that the variance could not issue because petitioner’s difficulties were self-created. In any event, the determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Hawkins, 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 respondents’ determination, dated March 4, 1975 and made after a hearing, denying petitioner’s application for a variance, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 1, 1976, which, inter alia, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Petitioner knew at the time the subject parcel was purchased that it was substandard. Whatever reliance petitioner placed upon the alleged practice of the department of buildings in issuing permits at that time does not overcome the rational basis for respondents’ determination that the variance could not issue because petitioner’s difficulties were self-created. In any event, the determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 937, 388 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-manor-inc-v-glass-nyappdiv-1976.