Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Barnett J. BRIMBERG, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 3, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) that upheld the final determinations of the Department of Buildings refusing to vacate a building permit issued to respondents L. Kevin O'Mara and Alexandra O'Mara, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly rejected petitioners' challenges to the building permit issued to the O'Mara respondents in connection with the construction of an addition to their townhouse. As the BSA correctly interpreted, the language of Zoning Resolution § 23-47 is clear that only one 30-foot yard was required at the far rear lot line and not also at the near rear lot line of the flag-shaped parcel (see Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v. Silva, 91 N.Y.2d 98, 106-107, 667 N.Y.S.2d 327, 689 N.E.2d 1373 [1997] ). The BSA also had a rational basis in approving the Department of Buildings' waiver of the five-foot shortfall of frontage on the O'Mara townhouse (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-291). The waiver was appropriately conditioned on the requirement that the construction be fully sprinklered in furtherance of the spirit of Administrative Code § 27-291, which relates to fire safety (see New York City Charter § 645[b][2]; Administrative Code § 27-107).
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 11, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)