Zulkofske v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Muttontown

61 A.D.2d 824, 402 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 824 (Zulkofske v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Muttontown) 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
Zulkofske v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Village of Muttontown, 61 A.D.2d 824, 402 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review appellant’s determination which, after a hearing, denied petitioner-respondent’s application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 27, 1976, which annulled the determination and remitted the matter to appellant for a new hearing and determination. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with Special Term’s conclusion that, upon remand, the board "should state how the creation of a lot of 1.6 acres will not be compatable [sic] with the surrounding neighborhood and adversely affect property values” and that it "should indicate the manner in which a 1.6 acre parcel would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the village’s land use plan.” However, it is noted that the condemnation award paid to petitioner apparently acknowledged the fact that she was left with a substandard lot and compensated her on the basis that her remaining property would be salable only to an adjoining owner. Accordingly, we believe it to be incumbent upon petitioner to show the amount, if any, which her adjoining neighbors (particularly the neighbor to her north, who also owns a substandard parcel) would be willing to pay for her land, as well as the cost to her to purchase all, or part, of the adjoining property. Only by means of such evidence would it be possible to ascertain whether petitioner has truly suffered any economic loss. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kransteuber v. Scheyer
176 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Wolfson v. Curcio
150 A.D.2d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Farrell v. Board of Zoning
77 A.D.2d 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Zulkofske v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Village of Muttontown
75 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Dittmer v. Scheyer
74 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Cook v. Haynes
63 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.2d 824, 402 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zulkofske-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-of-the-inc-village-of-muttontown-nyappdiv-1978.