Town of North Hempstead v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town of North Hempstead v. White

1 A.D.2d 781, 148 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 781 (Town of North Hempstead v. White) 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 North Hempstead v. White, 1 A.D.2d 781, 148 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Consolidated actions to enjoin the use of any part of appellant’s dwelling house, which is located in a residence district under the building zone ordinance of the Town of North Hempstead, as offices for the practice of professions by others than appellant, in violation of said ordinance, and in which actions appellant has separately counterclaimed for judgment declaring his right to use the premises for such offices. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to respondents dismissing appellant’s first counterclaim contained in each of the answers herein, which is to the effect that the use in question is a permissible nonconforming use. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the opinion rendered at Special Term. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ. [1 Misc 2d 228.]

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

Consolidated actions to enjoin the use of any part of appellant’s dwelling house, which is located in a residence district under the building zone ordinance of the Town of North Hempstead, as offices for the practice of professions by others than appellant, in violation of said ordinance, and in which actions appellant has separately counterclaimed for judgment declaring his right to use the premises for such offices. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to respondents dismissing appellant’s first counterclaim contained in each of the answers herein, which is to the effect that the use in question is a permissible nonconforming use. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the opinion rendered at Special Term. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ. [1 Misc 2d 228.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 781, 148 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-north-hempstead-v-white-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack