You are here: / / SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ZONING...

SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ZONING BOARD, EVEN IN AFFIRMING THE BOARD’S DETERMINATION, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE EXPLAINED.

The Third Department upheld the zoning board’s (ZBA’s) determination that the application for the nonconforming use of the property as a boarding house was properly denied. There was evidence that the initial nonconforming use was a nursing home, not a boarding house. The court noted that Supreme Court, which affirmed on different grounds, should not have substituted its own judgment for that of the board. The court further explained the criteria for allowing nonconforming use of property:

Supreme Court, apparently rejecting the ZBA’s conclusion that the property was a nursing home at the time that the zoning law was enacted in 1963, independently determined that the property was used as a boarding house in 1963, but that its current use as a boarding house was nonetheless a nonconforming use because its “ownership, occupancy and usage . . . [was] far removed from what it was in 1963.” This was improper. A reviewing court cannot, as the court did here, “search the record for a rational basis to support [an administrative agency’s] determination, substitute its judgment for that of the [agency] or affirm the underlying determination upon a ground not invoked . . . in the first instance” … . …

In recognition of the “undue financial hardship that immediate elimination of nonconforming uses would cause to property owners,” nonconforming uses that predate the enactment of a zoning ordinance are constitutionally protected and will grudgingly be permitted to continue notwithstanding the contrary law of the ordinance … . However, “[t]he law . . . generally views nonconforming uses as detrimental to a zoning scheme, and the overriding public policy of zoning in New York State and elsewhere is aimed at their reasonable restriction and eventual elimination” … . A preexisting nonconforming use is “closely restricted” such that it cannot be restored after substantial damage or conversion to a different nonconforming use and may be deemed abandoned following substantial discontinuation … . Matter of Tri-Serendipity, LLC v City of Kingston, 2016 NY Slip Op 08292, 3rd Dept 12-8-16

 

ZONING (SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ZONING BOARD, EVEN IN AFFIRMING THE BOARD’S DETERMINATION, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE EXPLAINED)/NONCONFORMING USE (ZNONING, SUPREME COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ZONING BOARD, EVEN IN AFFIRMING THE BOARD’S DETERMINATION, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE EXPLAINED)

You might also like
CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM A FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE NO PETITION HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, A DEFECT THAT MAY BE BROUGHT UP AT ANY TIME (THIRD DEPT).
BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’ ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).
IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN HOLOGRAPHIC WILL; MATTER SENT BACK TO SURROGATE’S COURT TO DEVELOP A RECORD ON THE DOMICILE ISSUE (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

DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT... REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND A SEALED RECORD MUST BE UNREDACTED AND UNSEALED, CRITERIA...