Warm v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warm v. Zoning Board of Appeals

243 A.D.2d 717, 664 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D.2d 717 (Warm v. Zoning 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

Warm v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 243 A.D.2d 717, 664 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson dated August 8, 1995, which, after a hearing, granted an application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered July 16, 1996, as, in effect, dismissed that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination granting the area variance.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson, in granting his neighbors’ application for an area variance, correctly applied the balancing test contained in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Malin v Leibowitz, 229 AD2d 580; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Accordingly, its determination was neither irrational nor unreasonable and, thus, was properly sustained by the Supreme Court (see, Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Allen v Adami, 39 NY2d 275; Aim Rent a Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson dated August 8, 1995, which, after a hearing, granted an application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered July 16, 1996, as, in effect, dismissed that branch of the petition which was to annul the determination granting the area variance.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson, in granting his neighbors’ application for an area variance, correctly applied the balancing test contained in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Malin v Leibowitz, 229 AD2d 580; Matter of Eccles v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 224 AD2d 525). Accordingly, its determination was neither irrational nor unreasonable and, thus, was properly sustained by the Supreme Court (see, Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Allen v Adami, 39 NY2d 275; Aim Rent a Car v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 156 AD2d 323).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 717, 664 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warm-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack