MATTER OF DOUGLASTON CIVIC ASS'N, INC. v. Klein
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Harrison v. Mayor of Batesville (Miss. 2011)
- SoHo Alliance v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Matter of 54 Marion Ave., LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Nemeth v. Village of Hancock Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Scott Harrison v. City of Batesville (Miss. 2009)
- Kallas v. Board of Estimate of the City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Matter of Nemeth v. K-Tooling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of 80 Woodland Ave, LLC v. Village of Catskill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of 54 Marion Ave., LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Kettaneh v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Jones v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Friends of Lake Mahopac v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Dreikausen v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Welsh v. Town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Christina Holding Corp. v. Silva (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Elwood Properties, Inc. v. Bohrer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Kingsley v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Orlando v. Board of Standards & Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Town Board of Town of Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Huntington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Feit v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Rodriguez v. Joseph (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Stone v. Lansing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Collins v. Carusone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Salvatore Marchese v. Koch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Rostlee Associates, Ltd. v. Amelkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
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
In the Matter of Douglaston Civic Association, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
Joseph B. Klein et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents. Samuel Mindel, Intervenor-Respondent.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Julius Feigenbaum for appellants.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Maureen F. Brennan and Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondents.
Joseph P. Morsellino for intervenor-respondent.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
*965MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The board found and the evidence sustains the finding that the land cannot yield a reasonable return as zoned, the cost of constructing residences being more than three times the potential sales price; that the grant of a variance permitting use for a period of 15 years as enclosed tennis courts would not change or impair the character of the adjacent properties or significantly affect traffic or pollution; and that the owner's difficulty arises from the swampy nature of his property. Thus, the essentials for the granting of a variance (see Matter of Otto v Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 76) have been met, unless the fact that other property within this residential district also is swampy requires, as appellant argues and the dissenters below agreed, a holding that the requisite uniqueness cannot be found and the owner's only relief must be in a declaratory judgment action or by a change in zoning.
Uniqueness does not require that only the parcel of land in question and none other be affected by the condition which creates the hardship (Beatrice Block Club Assn. v Facen, 40 Mich App 372, 380-382; see Matter of Jayne Estates v Raynor, 22 N.Y.2d 417, 425; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice 33, § 18.24; 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, p 38-15, § 38.02). What is required is that the hardship condition be not so generally applicable throughout the district as to require the conclusion that if all parcels similarly situated are granted variances the zoning of the district would be materially changed. What is involved, therefore, is a comparison between the entire district and the similarly situated land. Though there are other swampy parcels in the area we cannot say on this record either that as a matter of law the board could not find uniqueness or that in making the finding[*] it did it acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The more so *966 is this true in view of the confiscatory nature of the present zoning in relation to the subject parcel and the time limit imposed by the board on the variance it granted.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
NOTES
[*] "These unique physical conditions result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship to the owner, which are not due to circumstances created generally by the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Resolution in the district in which the subject property is located."
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.