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: William SEITZ, et al., appellants, v. Bruce E. HUMENIK, et al., respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Babylon, dated February 21, 1998, which, after a hearing, determined that the petitioners were not entitled to continue using their residence as a nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d 756; Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 386 N.Y.S.2d 681, 353 N.E.2d 594; Matter of Beirne v. Village of Pleasantville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 267 A.D.2d 234, 699 N.Y.S.2d 315 ). The petitioners sought to continue using their residence, which was damaged by fire, as a nonconforming multi-family dwelling. While the petitioners demonstrated that the premises had been configured as two separate apartments with cooking facilities since at least 1954, there was insufficient evidence that the nonconforming use predated the enactment of the Village of Babylon zoning ordinance. Accordingly, the Board properly determined that the petitioners were not entitled to continue using the structure as a nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: April 03, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)