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
Amendment of Summons and Complaint after the Statute of Limitations Has Run
PLAINTIFF, AFTER FAILING TO ARGUE THAT DEFENDANTS WAIVED THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, COULD NOT RAISE DEFENDANTS’ WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO COMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT),
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant in Medical Malpractice Action Should Have Been Allowed to Amend His Answer to Add Statute of Limitations Affirmative Defense
THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STREET STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Walkway Defect Trivial as a Matter of Law

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

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...