New York Court of Appeals, 1977

Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Hempstead

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 19, 1977

43 N.Y.2d 801; 402 N.Y.S.2d 388; 373 N.E.2d 282; 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2581

Cases that cite this one

64 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Shepard v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Johnstown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Sunrise Development, Inc. v. Town of Huntington (District Court, E.D. New York 1999)
Roginski v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Morton v. Jefferson Parish Council (La. 1982)
Brick Hill Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Somers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Marriott Corp. v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Robert Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Valley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Durante v. Town of New Paltz Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Shepard v. Zoning Board of Appeals (New York Supreme Court 1982)
Pluto's Retreat, Inc. v. Granito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Miller v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
Cove Pizza, Inc. v. Hirshon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Acker v. Village of Head of the Harbor (New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2025)
Matter of Chestnut Petroleum Dist., Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of 153 Mulford Assoc., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of E. Hampton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
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)
G & P Investing Co. v. Foley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Franklin Square Donut System, LLC v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Lyublinskiy v. Srinivasan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
West Beekmantown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
North Shore F.C.P., Inc. v. Mammina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Francis Development & Management Co. v. Town of Clarence (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Mian Enterprises, Inc. v. Easa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division reversed, with costs, and the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals reinstated.

The determination of the board, that petitioner’s application did not nor could not, through the imposition of reasonable conditions, meet the standards in the ordinance governing the *802granting of special exceptions, is sufficiently supported in the record. There was proof that development of a private parking lot in a residential district abutting, a proposed shopping center in a business district would significantly alter the character and quality of the surroúnding residential area, diminish property values, and increase traffic, congestion.

Of course, characterization of a parking lot as a special use or exception permitted with board approval precludes the board from arbitrarily denying applications, and denial solely because there is a general objection to the special use or éxception would be arbitrary (Matter of Pleasant Val. Home Constr. v Van Wagner, 41 NY2d 1028; see Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243-245). It does not follow, however, that requests for special exceptions must always be granted subject only to the imposition of reasonable conditions.

Entitlement to a special exception is not a matter of right (Matter of Lemir Realty Corp. v Larkin, 11 NY2d 20, 24). The stated standards in the ordinance guiding the board’s consideration of special exception applications condition availability of a special exception, and compliance with those standards must be shown before any exception can be secured (e.g., Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Oaks, 55 AD2d 809; Matter of C & G Developers v Granito, 53 AD2d 612; Matter of Klein v Seigel, 47 AD2d 924; see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 19.01; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp 54-1-54-30; see, also, ALI, Model Land Development Code, § 2-207, subd [2]). In the North Shore case (supra), resolution of the problem was both simpler and different from this case only because the ordinance there involved stated no elaborated standards.

One caveat is appropriate. Standards governing issuance of special exceptions may not be so general or tautological as to allow unchecked discretion on the part of the zoning board (see 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 19.11; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp 54-14-54-30). No such infirmity has been demonstrated to exist in the instant ordinance.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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