You are here: / / NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS...

NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proposed use of church property to house homeless persons did not require a variance:

Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice and all churches recognize that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the congregation in prayer. . . . To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening itself and the congregation” … . To that end, “[s]ervices to the homeless have been judicially recognized as religious conduct” … . Matter of Sullivan v Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Albany, 2016 NY Slip Op 07911, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

ZONING (NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)/CHURCH PROPERTY (ZONING, NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)/HOMELESS (ZONING, NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS)

You might also like
STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.
Suppression Hearing Should Have Been Held to Determine Whether Property Seized by Use of Excessive Force (Taser)
WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ON THE RECORD, A FAMILY COURT JUDGE CANNOT ORDER RESTITUTION IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING FOR ITEMS NOT RECITED IN THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Negligence Suit Based Upon Shooting at Shopping Mall Dismissed
NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE CLIENTS.
Expert Affidavit in Support of Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment Not Sufficient
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EXPERT EVIDENCE, OF DEFENDANT’S INTOXICATION TO RAISE A DOUBT WHETHER DEFENDANT FORMULATED THE INTENT TO COMMIT ASSAULT SECOND; THE REQUEST FOR THE INTOXICATION JURY CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STEPS ON WHICH SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ALTHOUGH ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WERE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE BY THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (POTENTIALLY RENDERING THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE) (THIRD 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

A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION... STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.