Arbor Oaks Civic Ass'n of Dix Hill, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Klein v. City Council (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- King v. Ronik (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Henry Quentzel Plumbing Supply Co. v. Quentzel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- Board of Education of the Farmingdale Union Free School District v. Gulotta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Agostino v. Monticello Greenhouses, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Waddle v. E. G. Snyder Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Cozi Auto Parts, Inc. v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Industrial Liaison Committee v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated December 15, 1983, as amended January 12, 1984, granting the application of respondent Elwood-Huntington Realty Corp. for a special use permit and variances to erect a nursing home on the subject premises, the petitioner civic association appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered November 30, 1984, which denied the petition.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In the light of the prior history of this property, prior reviews and decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1960 and 1975, the evidence adduced at the hearing on the present application (including evidence necessitated by the applicant’s concern that the permit and variances granted by the board in 1975 may have lapsed from nonuse), we find no basis in this record for annulling or modifying the determination as amended under review which granted the application in issue (cf. Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591). On all of the evidence, the determination under review cannot be held to be arbitrary, capricious or illegal, as contended by appellant. Appellant’s further contention that it was denied a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence is without merit. Appellant’s final argument, noncompliance with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL article 8), was neither raised in the administrative
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.