Vrooman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Philipstown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vrooman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Philipstown

298 A.D.2d 594, 748 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10244

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 594 (Vrooman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Philipstown) 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

Vrooman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Philipstown, 298 A.D.2d 594, 748 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown (hereinafter the Zoning Board) interpreted the zoning provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Philipstown and the provisions of a 1992 resolution of the Town Planning Board of the Town of Philipstown (hereinafter Planning Board) as requiring the petitioners to apply for, and obtain, subdivision:' approval from the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a building permit to the petitioners. We agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that the Zoning Board’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and was supported by the record (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308; Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 423; Matter of Shorelands, Inc. v Matthew, 230 AD2d 862, 863). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown (hereinafter the Zoning Board) interpreted the zoning provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Philipstown and the provisions of a 1992 resolution of the Town Planning Board of the Town of Philipstown (hereinafter Planning Board) as requiring the petitioners to apply for, and obtain, subdivision:' approval from the Planning Board prior to the issuance of a building permit to the petitioners. We agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that the Zoning Board’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and was supported by the record (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308; Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 423; Matter of Shorelands, Inc. v Matthew, 230 AD2d 862, 863). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 594, 748 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vrooman-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-of-philipstown-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack