Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Dost v. Chamberlain-Hellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 10, 1997

236 A.D.2d 471; 653 N.Y.S.2d 672; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1228

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Tampone v. Town of Red Hook Planning Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Muller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of Lewisboro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Marcus v. Planning Bd. of the Vil. of Wesley Hills (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Arceri v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Sunrise Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Town Board of the Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

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 Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Grand View-on-Hudson, dated November 22, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Rudolph, J.), dated January 10, 1995, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*472An applicant for a special use permit must establish that the proposed use complies in all other respects with the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801; Matter of Vergata v Town Bd., 209 AD2d 527; Matter of CBS Realty v Noto, 139 AD2d 645). The respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Grand View-on-Hudson (hereinafter the Board) does not have authority to waive or modify any conditions set forth in the ordinance, e.g., maximum square footage for home occupation, hours of operation, etc. (see, Matter of Commco, Inc. v Amelkin, 62 NY2d 260). Failure to meet any one of the conditions set forth in the ordinance warrants a denial of the special permit application (see, Matter of Wegmans Enters, v Lansing, 72 NY2d 1000; Matter of Calabro v Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 198 AD2d 274). The record here reveals that the petitioners’ plans for their proposed use of the premises violated provisions of the applicable zoning ordinances. Therefore, the Board properly denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.