You are here: / / Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure
,

Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure

A zoning measure that prohibited check cashing establishments in a town’s business district was invalid.  Zoning is concerned with the use of the land, not with the identity of the user.  The Town did not try to show and did not argue that check cashing services are in the same category as “adult entertainment” uses which have been found to have “negative secondary effects” on the surrounding community.  The zoning measure could not be justified as a “public safety measure.”  Sunrise Check Cashing and Payroll Services, Inc. vs Town of Hempstead, No. 12, CtApp 2-14-13

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER’S THREATS MADE TO HIS FORMER GIRLFRIEND WERE NOT MERELY ANGRY WORDS; THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DEFENDANT’S HARASSMENT CONVICTION (CT APP).
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).
A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY COVID-19 (CT APP).
NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).
IN ORDER TO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED OF HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCING EXPOSURE IN YEARS; THE “SPEEDY TRIAL” TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOINDER OF A CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL IS CHARGED TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT YET BEEN ARRAIGNED (CT APP).
GRANDPARENTS, WITH WHOM THE CHILD HAD RESIDED FOR TEN YEARS, HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE 24-MONTH SEPARATION OF PARENT AND CHILD REQUIRED BY THE “GRANDPARENT STANDING” STATUTE BE CHARACTERIZED BY A COMPLETE LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.
THE NEW YORK CLASSROOM-SIZE REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVES, NOT DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE INDEPENDENTLY FULFILLED (CT APP).
Harassment Not a Lesser Included Offense of Attempted Assault Third Degree

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Standard for Upward Child Support Modification, Agreement Incorporated But Not... Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination of Duration of Disability Given...