Torri Associates v. Chin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torri Associates v. Chin

282 A.D.2d 294, 723 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877

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

DecidedApril 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 294 (Torri Associates v. Chin) 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

Torri Associates v. Chin, 282 A.D.2d 294, 723 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), dated October 12, 1999, which approved the application of developer respondents for a zoning variance to construct a five-story plus penthouse commercial building, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.], entered November 16, 2000), dismissed, with one bill of costs to 218 East 59th Associates, L. L. C. and D & D 59th Street Building Company, L. L. C., payable by petitioner.

As an initial matter, the determination of respondent BSA here was administrative rather than quasi-judicial (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384, n 2) and, thus, should have been reviewed, and not transferred, by Supreme Court (see, Matter of Kent Ave. Block Assn. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 280 AD2d 423). We nonetheless decide the [295]*295matter on the merits in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Kent Ave. Block Assn., supra; Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand, Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 227 AD2d 779, 780).

The zoning board’s determination may not be set aside unless the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness or an abuse of discretion, and will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440). Despite petitioner’s numerous challenges, “it cannot be said that there was an absence of substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings as to each of the five requirements necessary to issue the proposed * * * variances here” (id. at 442). Accordingly, the challenged determination must be confirmed. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), dated October 12, 1999, which approved the application of developer respondents for a zoning variance to construct a five-story plus penthouse commercial building, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.], entered November 16, 2000), dismissed, with one bill of costs to 218 East 59th Associates, L. L. C. and D & D 59th Street Building Company, L. L. C., payable by petitioner.

As an initial matter, the determination of respondent BSA here was administrative rather than quasi-judicial (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384, n 2) and, thus, should have been reviewed, and not transferred, by Supreme Court (see, Matter of Kent Ave. Block Assn. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 280 AD2d 423). We nonetheless decide the [295]*295matter on the merits in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Kent Ave. Block Assn., supra; Matter of Supkis v Town of Sand, Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 227 AD2d 779, 780).

The zoning board’s determination may not be set aside unless the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness or an abuse of discretion, and will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of SoHo Alliance v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 95 NY2d 437, 440). Despite petitioner’s numerous challenges, “it cannot be said that there was an absence of substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings as to each of the five requirements necessary to issue the proposed * * * variances here” (id. at 442). Accordingly, the challenged determination must be confirmed. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 294, 723 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torri-associates-v-chin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack