§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Colin Realty Co., LLC, Appellant,v.Town of North Hempstead, et al., Respondents.

Brief

56 Cited authorities

  1. In the Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle

    24 A.D.3d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 442 times
    In Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 809 NYS2d 98 (2d Dept 2005), the court held that a "substantial evidence" question arises "only where a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing has been held."

  2. In the Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig

    98 N.Y.2d 304 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 452 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding denial of variance request where zoning board of appeals concluded modernist residence would aesthetically conflict with architecture of nearby homes and building on substandard lot would disturb perception from the street of larger lots

  3. Matter of Sasso v. Osgood

    86 N.Y.2d 374 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 515 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing and granting Article 78 petition to annul zoning board decision

  4. Pecoraro v. Bd. of Appeals

    2 N.Y.3d 608 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 344 times   1 Legal Analyses

    59. Argued March 23, 2004. Decided May 4, 2004. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered April 21, 2003. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Anthony L. Parga, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which annulled respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for an area variance and remitted the matter

  5. 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"

  6. Matter of Cowan v. Kern

    41 N.Y.2d 591 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 405 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[w]here there is a rational basis for the local decision, that decision should be sustained. It matters not whether, in close cases, a court would have, or should have, decided the matter differently"

  7. Raritan Development Corp. v. Silva

    91 N.Y.2d 98 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 190 times
    In Raritan, the question was whether "floor area" excludes "cellar space" (91 N.Y.2d at 100–101, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689 N.E.2d 1373).

  8. In re Trust v. Appeals Bd.

    98 N.Y.2d 190 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 126 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing effect of contrary expert traffic studies

  9. Khan v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    87 N.Y.2d 344 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 92 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Argued October 17, 1995 Decided January 16, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, James R. Cowhey, J. Plunkett Jaffe, P.C., White Plains ( Kevin J. Plunkett and Elizabeth S. Torkelsen of counsel), for appellants. Richard T. Blancato, Tarrytown, for respondent. SMITH, J. Respondent Khan sought to construct a residence on property that was made subject to environmental zoning regulations soon after he bought it. The primary issue in this case

  10. Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc., v. Boland

    282 N.Y. 256 (N.Y. 1940)   Cited 457 times
    In Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland (282 N.Y. 256, 267), the court said: "Where there is conflict in the testimony produced before the Board, where reasonable men might differ as to whether the testimony of one witness should be accepted or the testimony of another witness be rejected, where from the evidence either of two conflicting inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the Board.

  11. Section 617.5 - Type II Actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.5   Cited 153 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a) Actions or classes of actions identified in subdivision (c) of this section are not subject to review under this Part, except as otherwise provided in this section. These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, article 8. The actions identified in subdivision (c) of this section apply to all agencies. (b) Each agency may adopt its own list of Type II actions to supplement