Wisnom v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wisnom v. Zoning Board of Appeals

168 A.D.2d 921, 564 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16450

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 921 (Wisnom 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

Wisnom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 168 A.D.2d 921, 564 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled a variance which permitted construction of a second single-family home on a lot adjoining petitioner’s property. The only reason proffered by the applicant in support of the variance was that he desired to reside near his parents. Personal convenience, however, does not constitute a practical difficulty and is insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify the granting of a variance (see, Shields v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 164 AD2d 909; see also, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Cucci v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 154 AD2d 372; Matter of Faham v Bockman, 151 AD2d 665; Matter of Rembar v Board of Appeals, 148 AD2d 619; Matter of McLaren v Schick, 112 AD2d 732). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled a variance which permitted construction of a second single-family home on a lot adjoining petitioner’s property. The only reason proffered by the applicant in support of the variance was that he desired to reside near his parents. Personal convenience, however, does not constitute a practical difficulty and is insufficient, as a matter of law, to justify the granting of a variance (see, Shields v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 164 AD2d 909; see also, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Cucci v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 154 AD2d 372; Matter of Faham v Bockman, 151 AD2d 665; Matter of Rembar v Board of Appeals, 148 AD2d 619; Matter of McLaren v Schick, 112 AD2d 732). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 921, 564 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisnom-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack