You are here: / / ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, ...

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.

The Second Department determined petitioners, who own property adjacent to the property for which the contested variance was granted, did not have standing to challenge the variance. The challenge was deemed not to be within the “zone of interest” encompassed by the relevant statute. Any increase in parking related to the variance affected only the subject property, and not parking on the street:

… [A] petitioner whose property is adjacent to the property that is the subject of the administrative action may rely on a presumption of direct injury for purposes of standing … . Nevertheless, even a petitioner whose property is adjacent to the subject property must demonstrate that its alleged injury is within the “zone of interest” of the statute … . “Simply stated, a party must show that the in-fact injury of which it complains (its aggrievement, or the adverse effect upon it) falls within the zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” … .

Here, we agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioners/plaintiffs did not allege any legally cognizable injury with respect to parking or traffic. Simply put, the only effect that the petitioners/plaintiffs allege the area variances will have with respect to parking is limited to parking actually on the subject property. There is no allegation of impact as to on-street parking … . Matter of Panevan Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 2016 NY Slip Op 07327, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

ZONING (ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE)/VARIANCE (ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE)/STANDING (ZONING, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTERESTS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE)/ZONE OF INTERESTS (ZONING, (ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE)

You might also like
A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MENTION DE-ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUTURE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT DE-ACCELERATED AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY CAN BE SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION.
HOLDER OF SECOND MORTGAGE COULD PROPERLY SUE ONLY ON THE UNDERLYING DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.
Post-Accident Surveillance Videos Properly Excluded from Trial, Videos Did Not Demonstrate “Habit” or “Routine Procedure” Which Rose to the Level of Admissible Circumstantial Evidence of the Cause of Ice Formation
COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S WILL IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE.
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITNESS (DEFENDANT’S COUSIN) TO INDUCE THE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT INTRODUCTION OF THE WITNESS’S PRIOR STATEMENTS AT TRIAL (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

ROPE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION KNOWN... ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR...