§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

38 Cited authorities

  1. Watergate v. Buffalo Sewer

    46 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 671 times
    Holding that "one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law"

  2. 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"

  3. Parkview Assocs v. City of New York

    71 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 290 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

  4. Church of St. Paul v. Barwick

    67 N.Y.2d 510 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that decision was not final "until plaintiff has sought and the Commission has granted or denied a certificate of appropriateness or other approval . . . ."

  5. Tall Trees Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    97 N.Y.2d 86 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tall Trees Construction Corp., though, the court held that because the Board did not have to make any findings of fact, the court's appellate review was not limited to such findings when deciding whether the procedural dismissal was arbitrary or capricious.

  6. Town of Orangetown v. Magee

    88 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 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"

  7. State v. John S.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3292 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 97 times
    In Matter of State of New York v. John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326, 991 N.Y.S.2d 532, 15 N.E.3d 287, the Court of Appeals held that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c) superseded the sealing procedures set forth in CPL 160.50, so as to permit disclosure of such sealed records.

  8. Amorosi v. South Colonie Independent Central School District

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9904 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that "the one-year limitation prescribed in Education Law § 3813(2-b) should govern discrimination claims against a school district"

  9. Columbus Apts., Inc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal

    5 N.Y.3d 303 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 91 times

    96. Argued May 4, 2005. Decided June 14, 2005. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered February 26, 2004. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, had denied the petition to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community

  10. New York Botanical Garden v. Board of Standards & Appeals

    91 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that "[w]hether a proposed accessory use is clearly incidental to and customarily found in connection with the principal use depends on an analysis of the nature and character of the principal use of the land in question in relation to the accessory use, taking into consideration the over-all character of the particular area in question."