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: MICHAEL J. MIMASSI, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF WHITESTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is granted in part, the determination is vacated, and the matter is remitted to respondent for a de novo determination of the application.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of respondent denying his application for an area variance. We reject petitioner's contention that the determination was arbitrary and capricious because respondent failed to adhere to its precedent. Petitioner failed to establish that respondent's determination on another application was based on essentially the same facts as petitioner's present application (see Matter of 194 Main, Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals for Town of N. Hempstead, 71 AD3d 1028, 1030; see generally Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 93; Knight v. Amelkin, 68 N.Y.2d 975, 977).
We agree with petitioner, however, that Supreme Court erred in denying the petition. Respondent “was required to weigh the benefit to [petitioner] of granting the variance[ ] against any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community affected thereby, taking into account the five factors set forth in Town Law § 267–b (3)(b)” (Matter of Conway v Town of Irondequoit Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 38 AD3d 1279, 1279–1280; see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612–613; Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 307–308). Here, respondent based its determination upon factors and other criteria relevant to the former “practical difficulty” test, which is no longer followed, rather than on the factors set forth in Town Law § 267–b (3)(b) (see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 100 N.Y.2d 395, 402; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384). Inasmuch as respondent failed to engage in the necessary balancing test, we vacate the determination, and we remit the matter to respondent for a de novo determination (see Matter of Nye v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Grand Is., 81 AD3d 1455, 1456; Matter of Fusco v. Russell, 283 A.D.2d 936, 936). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 14–00913
Decided: January 02, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)