Sullivan v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. Duffy

283 A.D.2d 583, 724 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197

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

DecidedMay 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 583 (Sullivan v. Duffy) 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

Sullivan v. Duffy, 283 A.D.2d 583, 724 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown, dated May 19, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated December 15, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown that the petitioners were required to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, to convert their detached garage to a second residence was neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the Zoning Code of the Town of Orangetown (see, Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman, 62 NY2d 539, 545). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown, dated May 19, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated December 15, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown that the petitioners were required to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, to convert their detached garage to a second residence was neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the Zoning Code of the Town of Orangetown (see, Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v Gliedman, 62 NY2d 539, 545). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 583, 724 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-duffy-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack