Stoneleigh Farms Associates v. Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoneleigh Farms Associates v. Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals

276 A.D.2d 705, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10878

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 705 (Stoneleigh Farms Associates v. Town of Carmel 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

Stoneleigh Farms Associates v. Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals, 276 A.D.2d 705, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 17, 1999, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 31, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The interpretation of the Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicable zoning code permits medical offices [706]*706in a hospital located in an R-60 zoning district was rational and was supported by the substantial evidence presented in the record (see, Matter of Khan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 NY2d 344; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ.j 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 respondent Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 17, 1999, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated August 31, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The interpretation of the Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicable zoning code permits medical offices [706]*706in a hospital located in an R-60 zoning district was rational and was supported by the substantial evidence presented in the record (see, Matter of Khan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 NY2d 344; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Schmidt, JJ.j concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 705, 716 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoneleigh-farms-associates-v-town-of-carmel-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack