§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Perlbinder Holdings, LLC, Appellant-Respondent,v.Meenakshi Srinivasan,, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Brief

53 Cited authorities

  1. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City

    438 U.S. 104 (1978)   Cited 2,584 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding prohibition on construction of fifty-five-story office tower over New York's Grand Central Terminal is not a regulatory taking

  2. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

    533 U.S. 606 (2001)   Cited 760 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding regulatory takings inquiries are “informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from ‘forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.’ ” (quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960))

  3. Armstrong v. United States

    364 U.S. 40 (1960)   Cited 779 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that building material suppliers were entitled to compensation where a shipbuilder's contract with the government specifically showed that the shipbuilder retained title to the uncompleted ships during their construction, because the suppliers' lien interests in the building materials could attach while the contractor held title and the government's action in taking title then also took the suppliers' lien property interests

  4. Toys "R" Us v. Silva

    89 N.Y.2d 411 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 267 times
    Stating that, generally, abandonment requires an intent to relinquish and some overt act or failure to act, but that "the inclusion of a lapse period in the zoning provision removes the requirement of intent to abandon - discontinuance of nonconforming activity for the specified period constitutes an abandonment regardless of intent"

  5. Parkview Assocs v. City of New York

    71 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 291 times
    Holding that "`[e]stoppel is not available against a local government unit for the purpose of ratifying an administrative error,'" and such an administrative error does not confer rights contrary to the zoning laws

  6. National Ass'n of Women's & Children's Apparel Salesmen, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

    414 U.S. 1004 (1973)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Approving bank's requirement that loan applicant maintain certain amount on deposit to secure proposed loan

  7. Bender v. Health Hosps

    38 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 296 times
    Holding that estoppel can apply "to notice of claim situations" to bar the defense whenever it is raised, explaining that "[this] equitable bar . . . may arise by virtue of positive acts, or omissions where there was a duty to act"

  8. Duncan v. Middlefield

    23 Ohio St. 3d 83 (Ohio 1986)   Cited 115 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Duncan, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth seven "factors to be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area variance has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property."

  9. Matter of Frishman v. Schmidt

    61 N.Y.2d 823 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 84 times

    Decided February 16, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, HAROLD L. WOOD, J. Alfred D. Fredericks for appellant. Joseph J. Buderwitz, Jr., for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The rule that a zoning ordinance is to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner (see Matter of Allen v Adami, 39 N.Y.2d 275, 277) is subject to the limitation that where it is difficult or impractical

  10. Pantelidis v. N.Y

    43 A.D.3d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 32 times
    In Matter of Pantelidis v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 A.D.3d 314, 841 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept.2007], affd.10 N.Y.3d 846, 859 N.Y.S.2d 597, 889 N.E.2d 474 [2008], we affirmed a decision of the Supreme Court (10 Misc.3d 1077(A), 2005 WL 3722913 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County 2005]), which held that the BSA was required to consider the petitioner's good-faith reliance on a later-rescinded permit when considering the petitioner's application for a variance.