Vette Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vette Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

51 A.D.3d 938, 856 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 938 (Vette Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals) 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

Vette Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals, 51 A.D.3d 938, 856 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream dated September 20, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for certain area variances and final site plan approval, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 18, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” (Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004] [citations omitted]). A determination of a zoning board should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 385 [1995]; Matter of Zupa v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 31 AD3d 570 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream (hereinafter the Board) engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d at 384; Village Law § 7-712-b [3] [b]). The record indicates that the Board’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 614-615; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 [939]*939NY2d 374 [1995]; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, 26 AD3d 382, 383 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 770-773).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, 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 Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream dated September 20, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for certain area variances and final site plan approval, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 18, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” (Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004] [citations omitted]). A determination of a zoning board should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 385 [1995]; Matter of Zupa v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 31 AD3d 570 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream (hereinafter the Board) engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d at 384; Village Law § 7-712-b [3] [b]). The record indicates that the Board’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 614-615; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 [939]*939NY2d 374 [1995]; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, 26 AD3d 382, 383 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 770-773).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 938, 856 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vette-realty-inc-v-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack