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
TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE INTO DEFENDANT’S SERIOUS REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY, CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
BREACH OF PHYSICIAN-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLOWED TO PROCEED AGAINST HOSPITAL AND TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFFS’ DECEDENT’S TREATMENT AND DEATH IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE FILMED WITHOUT CONSENT; ALLEGATIONS OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION.
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST NYC ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM AN UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX SCHEME (CT APP).
THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING RISK LEVEL UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CT APP).
Moratorium on Fracking Did Not Extend Oil and Gas Leases Beyond the Primary Five-Year Term
DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (CT APP).
BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP).

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 © 2025 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...