New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Knight v. Amelkin

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1986

68 N.Y.2d 975; 510 N.Y.S.2d 550; 503 N.E.2d 106; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20935

Cases that cite this one

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

Alfano v. VILLAGE OF FARMINGDALE (District Court, E.D. New York 2010)
Powers v. St. John's University School of Law (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Powers v. St. John's University School of Law (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of East Hampton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of East Hampton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Menachem Realty Inc. v. Srinivasan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Lyublinskiy v. Srinivasan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Village of Mamaroneck Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Frisenda v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Pesek v. Hitchcock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Iannucci v. Casey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Billeris v. The Incorporated Village of Bayville, New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
Vanderveer v. Zoning Board of Appeals Town of East Hampton (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
Matter of Liu v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v. Pavacic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Benali, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of London Leasing Ltd. Partnership v. Division of Hous. & Community Renewal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Monte Carlo 1, LLC v. Weiss (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
MIMASSI, MICHAEL J. v. TOWN OF WHITESTOWN ZBA (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Fortunato v. Town of Hempstead Bd. of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Mimassi v. Town of Whitestown Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Mimassi v. Town of Whitestown Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Chynn v. DeChance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Chynn v. DeChance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Wilson v. Iwanowicz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington for further consideration.

We have recently held that "[a] decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 517). Inasmuch as a zoning board of appeals performs a quasi-judicial function when considering applications for variances and special exceptions (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598-599, rearg denied 42 NY2d 910; Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190, lv denied 63 NY2d 603), and completely lacks legislative power (2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 23.59, at 251; 6 Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.01 [2] [b], at 43-8 — 43-9), a zoning board of appeals must comply with the rule of the Field case. Here, petitioners have succeeded in showing the existence of several *978earlier determinations by the Zoning Board with sufficient factual similarity so as to warrant an explanation from the Board. In particular, the Board should explain why it no longer interprets section 198-44 (C) of the zoning ordinance to be applicable in a case involving intensified use of property, as it apparently did in its July 1982 and November 1981 decisions cited by petitioners. It should also explain why its 1978 determination granting a variance to another owner of a downtown furniture store is different from the application of petitioners. Of course, the Board is not prohibited by our decision today from denying petitioners’ application for a variance from or special exception to the zoning ordinance’s off-street parking requirements. We only hold that because petitioners have shown earlier determinations of the Board reaching contrary results on essentially the same facts, an explanation or, in the alternative, a conforming determination, is required.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, with directions to remand to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington for further consideration in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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