You are here: / / EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
,

EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.

The Second Department determined the extension of a nonconforming use by the construction of decks, a gazebo, awning and detached shed should not have been permitted by the board of zoning appeals (BZA):

… [T]he Surf Club's erection of the decks, the awning, the gazebo, and the detached shed on its premises, and the completion of certain alterations to its clubhouse, constituted an impermissible extension of that nonconforming use, not a mere increase in volume or intensity of the same nonconforming use … . As such, the BZA's determination to grant the Surf Club's application for an extension of nonconforming use violated Code of Town of Brookhaven § 85-883(A)(2), which prohibits the extension of nonconforming uses. Accordingly, the portion of the BZA's determination which granted the Surf Club's application for an extension of nonconforming use was arbitrary and capricious and should have been annulled by the Supreme Court. Matter of Martinos v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 2016 NY Slip Op 02828, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


You might also like
THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALLOWING THE APPLICANT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO RETURN WITH A SIGNAGE PROPOSAL AFTER THE PLAN WAS APPROVED DID NOT CONSTITUTE (IMPERMISSIBLE) SEGMENTATION UNDER SEQRA (SECOND DEPT).
Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance Doctrine Not Applicable
General Contractor’s Liability for Ice and Snow at Work Site/Criteria for Indemnification of General Contractor
AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE TWO STEPS LEADING TO A LANDING AT DEFENDANT’S FRONT DOOR; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE CITY (NYC) HAD ENTERED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS... CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISION MAKING LITIGATION THE SOLE METHOD FOR RESOLVING...