Village of Spencerport v. Webaco Oil Co.

33 A.D.2d 634, 305 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 23, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 634 (Village of Spencerport v. Webaco Oil Co.) 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
Village of Spencerport v. Webaco Oil Co., 33 A.D.2d 634, 305 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Although in the absence of - special ordinance provision, intent to abandon a nonconforming use coupled with actual discontinuance of the use must be found in order to cause the loss of the right to maintain . a nonconforming use (Gauthier v. Village of Larchmont, 30 A D 2d 303, 305; City of Binghamton v. Gartell, 275 App. Div. 457; 8A McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [1965, revd.], § 25.192; 2 Rathkoff, Law of Zoning and Planning, p. 61-3, § 2; 101 C. J. S., Zoning, § 198), the ordinance in this casé providés that discontinuance of a nonconforming use for a-period of one year shall result in the loss of the right to resume it without a permit. Such a provision is deemed to supply ás a .matter, of law the element of intent,' so that discontinuance of the nonconforming usé for such period, if reasonable in length, amounts to an abandonment of the use (Matter of Franmor Realty Corp. v. Le Boeuf, 201 Misc. 220, affd. 279 App. Div. 795, mot. for lv. to reargue, den., 279 App. Div. 874; Matter of Jahn v. Town of Patterson, 23 A D 2d 688; see Gauthier v. Village of Larchmont,. supra) 8A McQuillin, Municipal- Corporations [1965, revd.], § 25.190.; Anderson, Zoning Law and Practice in New York State, §§ 6.45, 6.46; 2 Rathkoff, Law of Zoning and Planning, p. 61 — 4, § 3). This construction; we believe,- is consonant with the- objects of municipal zoning (see Matter of Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 N Y 2d 553; and see 8A McQuillin, Municipal-Corporations, [1965, revd.] § 25.189.; Anderson, .Zoning Law and Practice in New .York State, §§ 6.47, 6.48). We -affirm the ■ finding of fact by the Trial Justice that'the nonconforming use. was discontinued for inore than one year. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe' Trial Term enjoining defendants from operating gasoline station.) Present- — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio,' Witmer, Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.

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

Related

Sadler v. Zoning Board of Appeals
240 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Darcy v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Rochester
185 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Town of Islip v. P.B.S. Marina, Inc.
133 A.D.2d 81 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Town of Brighton v. Griffin
532 A.2d 1292 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1987)
Prudco Realty Corp. v. Palermo
93 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Ellentuck v. Klein
570 F.2d 414 (Second Circuit, 1978)
Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Board of Zoning Appeals
57 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Highway Oil Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
55 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
McLay v. Maryland Assemblies, Inc.
306 A.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Rudnik v. Mayers
196 N.W.2d 770 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.2d 634, 305 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-spencerport-v-webaco-oil-co-nyappdiv-1969.