Town of Hempstead v. Goldblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of Hempstead v. Goldblatt

4 A.D.2d 970, 168 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 970 (Town of Hempstead v. Goldblatt) 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

Town of Hempstead v. Goldblatt, 4 A.D.2d 970, 168 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enjoin the use of two parcels of real property allegedly in violation of a building zone ordinance, the appeal is from so much of a judgment entered after trial as enjoined the operation of a transit mix business on one of said parcels. The real property, situated in a residence district under the zoning ordinance, is used to mine sand and gravel, as a lawful nonconforming use. The proof establishes that sand and gravel mined on the premises, together with cement brought in from outside the premises, are mixed on the premises to form a concrete aggregate. The proof further establishes that some quantities of sand and gravel, not mined on the premises, are also used to form the concrete aggregate. The Trial Justice found that the prior nonconforming use has been extended and changed, and that the present use is not a mere modernization of the sand and gravel business. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—'Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See 5 A D 2d 693.]

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

In an action to enjoin the use of two parcels of real property allegedly in violation of a building zone ordinance, the appeal is from so much of a judgment entered after trial as enjoined the operation of a transit mix business on one of said parcels. The real property, situated in a residence district under the zoning ordinance, is used to mine sand and gravel, as a lawful nonconforming use. The proof establishes that sand and gravel mined on the premises, together with cement brought in from outside the premises, are mixed on the premises to form a concrete aggregate. The proof further establishes that some quantities of sand and gravel, not mined on the premises, are also used to form the concrete aggregate. The Trial Justice found that the prior nonconforming use has been extended and changed, and that the present use is not a mere modernization of the sand and gravel business. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—'Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ. [See 5 A D 2d 693.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 970, 168 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-hempstead-v-goldblatt-nyappdiv-1957.