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: Andrew B. Siegel, appellant, v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Irvington, et al., respondents.
Argued-April 9, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington dated December 5, 2008, granting the application of the respondent Doris K. Morin for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), entered October 2, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a prior proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was finally determined by an unappealed judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 6, 2008, which determined that the subject lots had not merged with the adjacent property under theories of common ownership or merger by use, and directed the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington (hereinafter the ZBA) to grant the applicant a variance to construct a dwelling on the lots as a matter of right. Accordingly, the petitioner's current contentions that the lots did merge, and that they constitute an unbuildable side yard, were or could have been raised in the previous CPLR article 78 proceeding and are, thus, now precluded by principles of res judicata (see Matter of Josey v. Goord, 9 NY3d 386, 389-390; Lefkowitz v. Etra & Etra, 13 AD3d 132, 133; Matter of Falco v. Town of Islip, 289 A.D.2d 490, 490-491; Matter of Waylonis v. Baum, 281 A.D.2d 636, 638). In addition, the petitioner's contention that the ZBA failed to weigh the statutory factors (see Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b] ) in exercising its discretion is unavailing, since the judgment entered August 6, 2008, mandated that the variance be issued. In any event, we note that this contention is without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, BELEN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-10084 (Index No. 27816 /08)
Decided: May 11, 2010
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)