§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Exeter Building Corp., et al., Appellants,v.Town of Newburgh, et al., Respondents.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. Town of Orangetown v. Magee

    88 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 175 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "Building Inspector . . . implement[ed] Town Policy" where the zoning code "vest[ed] the Building Inspector, alone, with the authority to revoke building permits"

  2. Zahn v. Board of Public Works

    274 U.S. 325 (1927)   Cited 226 times
    In Zahn et al. v. Board of Public Works et al., 274 U.S. 325, 328, 47 S. Ct. 594, 595, 71 L. Ed. 1074, a zoning ordinance of the city of Los Angeles, dividing the city into five building zones, and prescribing the kind of buildings that could be erected in each zone, was held constitutional in its general scope.

  3. Ellington Constr v. Zoning Bd.

    77 N.Y.2d 114 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 79 times
    Finding petitioner had vested right where town approved petitioner's plan and petitioner installed various improvements on the land prior to amendments to applicable zoning ordinance

  4. Glacial Aggregates v. Town of Yorkshire

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1375 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Glacial Aggregates, we reiterated that, although a mining permit is "`strong evidence of a manifestation of intent `"to continue that nonconforming use, it is "not `a prerequisite to establishing prior nonconforming use rights `" (Glacial Aggregates, 14 NY3d at 137-138, quoting Buffalo Crushed Stone, 13 NY3d at 101-102).

  5. Matter of Allen v. Adami

    39 N.Y.2d 275 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Allen v. Adami, 347 N.E.2d 890 (N.Y. 1976), the New York State Court of Appeals confronted a similarly worded exception to the lot area restrictions in an analogous factual situation.

  6. Exeter Bldg. Corp. v. Town of Newburgh

    114 A.D.3d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2014-02-13 In the Matter of EXETER BUILDING CORP., et al., petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents, v. TOWN OF NEWBURGH, et al., respondents/defendants-appellants. Dickover, Donnelly, Donovan and Biagi, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael H. Donnelly of counsel), for respondents/defendants-appellants. Burke, Miele & Golden, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Richard B. Golden of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-respondents. WILLIAM F. MASTRO Dickover, Donnelly, Donovan and Biagi, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Michael H. Donnelly of

  7. Exeter Bldg. Corp. v. Town of Newburgh

    24 N.E.3d 1097 (N.Y. 2014)

    No. 2014–1038. 12-16-2014 In the Matter of EXETER BUILDING CORP., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF NEWBURGH, et al., Respondents. Opinion Motion for leave to appeal granted.

  8. Building v. Newburgh

    49 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    No. 2006-11278, 2007-02331. March 18, 2008. In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Newburgh dated March 6, 2006, enacting Local Law No. 3 (2006) of Town of Newburgh, which rezoned certain real property, and action for a judgment declaring that Exeter Building Corp. has a vested right to develop the real property in accordance with the prior zoning regulations and that Local Law No. 3 (2006) of Town of Newburgh is null and void

  9. 440 East 102nd Street Corp. v. Murdock

    285 N.Y. 298 (N.Y. 1941)   Cited 98 times

    Argued March 5, 1941 Decided April 24, 1941 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, STEUER, J. Frederick E. Crane, Leonard Acker and Edgar A. Palmieri for appellant. William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel ( James Hall Prothero, Paxton Blair and Jeremiah M. Evarts of counsel), for respondents. RIPPEY, J. On and prior to March 13, 1935, the petitioner-appellant owned property facing about 218 feet on East One Hundred and Second street in the borough of Manhattan and bounded

  10. Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles

    195 Cal. 497 (Cal. 1925)   Cited 114 times
    In Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 497 (234 P. 388), affirmed in 274 U.S. 325 (47 S Ct 594, 71 L ed 1074).

  11. Section 265-A - Exemption of lots shown on approved subdivision plats

    N.Y. Town Law § 265-A   Cited 14 times

    1. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of this chapter or of any general, special or local law, the provisions of a zoning ordinance or local law hereafter adopted, or of a change or amendment thereto, which provisions: (a) establish or increase lot areas or lot dimensions which are in excess of the areas or dimensions of the lots shown and delineated on a residential subdivision plat which has been duly approved by the planning board, or other board or officer vested with authority to approve