Straub v. Gustafson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Straub v. Gustafson

148 A.D.2d 541, 540 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2781

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 541 (Straub v. Gustafson) 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

Straub v. Gustafson, 148 A.D.2d 541, 540 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Village Board of the Incorporated Village of Lake Grove, dated February 9, 1987, which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the respondents appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated July 22, 1987, which vacated the determination and directed the appellants to issue a special permit to the petitioner.

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

We find that the denial of an area variance to the petitioner was arbitrary and capricious and served to deprive her of any use of the property (see, Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30). We note, moreover, that the Village Board failed to demonstrate that a legitimate public interest would be fostered by the denial of the application for an area variance (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, affd 67 NY2d 702). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Moflen, P. J., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 Village Board of the Incorporated Village of Lake Grove, dated February 9, 1987, which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the respondents appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), dated July 22, 1987, which vacated the determination and directed the appellants to issue a special permit to the petitioner.

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

We find that the denial of an area variance to the petitioner was arbitrary and capricious and served to deprive her of any use of the property (see, Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30). We note, moreover, that the Village Board failed to demonstrate that a legitimate public interest would be fostered by the denial of the application for an area variance (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, affd 67 NY2d 702). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Moflen, P. J., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 541, 540 N.Y.S.2d 182, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/straub-v-gustafson-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack