New York Court of Appeals, 2004

Inlet Homes Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 4, 2004

2 N.Y. 769; 812 N.E.2d 1246; 2 N.Y.3d 769; 780 N.Y.S.2d 298; 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 931

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Frank v. Zoning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Smelyansky v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Estate of Gravino v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Korzenko v. Scheyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Brady v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Caspian Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Margaritis v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Pazera v. Drexelius (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Corigliano v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
WWA Realty Holding, II, LLC v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Lynbrook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Mangan v. Cianciulli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Ram v. Town of Islip (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Cicio v. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Imhof v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 affirmed with costs.

Giving due deference to the broad discretion of zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]), the denial by respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of petitioner’s application for an area variance to build a single-family dwelling upon an illegally nonconform*726ing substandard parcel had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the Board’s finding that the character of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly conforming to the zoning requirements and that a grant of the area variance would have an adverse effect on the surrounding community. As the court below further recognized, the alleged difficulty here was self-created in that when purchasing the property, petitioner was aware that the Board had previously denied to the contract vendor an area variance for the same lot and under the same circumstances.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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