Summary
In Matter of Stillman v. Board of Standards Appeals (222 A.D. 19; affd., 247 N.Y. 599) the court said: "The board seems to have assumed that this modification of the zoning resolution for the benefit of a single property owner could be made because it was advantageous to the particular owner.
Summary of this case from Finn v. Board of Standards & AppealsOpinion
Argued February 21, 1928
Decided March 27, 1928
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel ( Elliot S. Benedict, J. Joseph Lilly and William T. Kennedy of counsel), for Board of Standards and Appeals, appellant.
Charles L. Craig for Fortieth Street and Park Avenue, Inc., appellant. E. De T. Bechtel for Joseph F. Stillman et al., respondents.
Kenneth M. Spence for Austin G. Fox, respondent.
M.G. Holstein for 104 East Fortieth Corporation, respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN, KELLOGG and O'BRIEN, JJ.