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: B.Z.V. ENTERPRISE CORP., appellant, v. Meenakshi SRINIVASAN, etc., et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, dated January 27, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a use variance to convert an existing four-story building located in a manufacturing zoning district to a residential dwelling, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated September 17, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Local zoning boards have broad discretion and judicial review is thus limited to determining whether the zoning board's action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404; Matter of DeCaro Capital Inv. Group, LLC v. Voekler, 32 A.D.3d 852, 821 N.Y.S.2d 610; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98, lv. dismissed 7 N.Y.3d 708, 822 N.Y.S.2d 482, 855 N.E.2d 798). Here, the denial by the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) of the petitioner's application for a use variance had a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary and capricious, illegal, or an abuse of discretion (see New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21; Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308-309, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, supra at 772, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). Further, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the instant variance application lacked “sufficient factual similarity” to variance application number 369-01-BZ (cf. Knight v. Amelkin, 68 N.Y.2d 975, 978, 510 N.Y.S.2d 550, 503 N.E.2d 106). Thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to disturb the Board's determination.
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: December 19, 2006
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)