You are here: / / ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE...

ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined the zoning board (ZBA) properly rejected petitioner’s application to rebuild a fire-damaged, non-conforming home after the statutory one-year period for a rebuild had passed. The unambiguous language of the town code provision supported the board’s action (therefore the action was not arbitrary and/or capricious):

The ZBA’s affirmance of the … denial of the complete application for a building permit was based on its interpretation of Town Code § 77-48(A) as then in effect. Since the interpretation of the terms of that section involves a pure legal interpretation of statutory terms, we do not defer to the ZBA’s interpretation, but instead make an independent review of the law … . We conclude that the ZBA correctly interpreted the then-current version of Town Code § 77-48(A). Indeed, the provision “could not be clearer” … ; it enunciated a strict one-year limit for completion of the rebuilding of a destroyed nonconforming residence. Thus, the ZBA’s affirmance of the denial of the … permit application was a correct interpretation of the law. The ZBA correctly concluded that it was not authorized to disregard that clear language. Matter of Warner v Town of Kent Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2016 NY Slip Op 07332, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

ZONING (ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME)

You might also like
THE POLICE REMOVED PLAINTIFF’S BOYFRIEND FROM PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES THREE TIMES TELLING PLAINTIFF HE WOULD NOT COME BACK AND SHE WILL BE OKAY; THEN HER BOYFRIEND THREW HER OUT A THIRD FLOOR WINDOW; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY; THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
County Clerk Not Authorized to Enter Judgment Where the Underlying Stipulation Required Notice Prior to Entry and Extrinsic Evidence Was Required to Calculate the Amount
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
USURY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH IS WAIVED IF NOT RAISED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEVERED USURIOUS PROVISIONS OF LOAN AGREEMENTS WHERE DEFENDANT DEFAULTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a Civil Contempt Finding
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED, THE REFEREE’S REPORT FUNCTIONS AS AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES WHICH THE DEFENDANTS CAN CONTEST (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE... EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT...