Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- DeFalco v. DeChance (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Cos-Lin, Inc. v. Spring Lake Bd. of Adjustment (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
- Matter of Andes v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- MATTER OF PMS ASSETS, LTD. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Pleasantville (N.Y. 2002)
- Ganco, Inc. v. City Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Mt. Lyell Enterprises, Inc. v. DeRooy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Castore v. Breite (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Cymbidium Development Corp. v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Carcuro v. Madigan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Commco, Inc. v. Amelkin (N.Y. 1984)
- Garcia v. Holze (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Albert v. Board of Standards & Appeals of the City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Stein v. City of Newburgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Cohalan v. Lechtrecker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division dated January 22, 1979 having been reviewed, the order of that court dated July 7, 1980 should be affirmed, with costs.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the board of appeals that there had been such a change in use of the subject premises as to cause it to lose its nonconforming status. There was proof that what was in essence a seasonal summer hotel had been converted to a year-round facility for senior citizens with a consequent significant increase in demand for municipal services. Nor does this case present any occasion to make an exception to the general rule that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to preclude a municipality from enforcing the provisions of its zoning ordinance.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.