You are here: / / ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS...

ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

The Second Department determined the zoning board’s failure explain why it departed from its own precedent rendered its grant of variances arbitrary and capricious:

[The] variances permitted [petitioner] to subdivide a parcel he owned into two substandard lots, and to construct a two-family residence on each lot. In February 2014, the petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the Zoning Board’s determination on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious, because the Zoning Board failed to properly distinguish the subject application from a substantially similar prior application, made as to the same parcel, which the Zoning Board had denied in 2010. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the determination … .

“A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” … . Where it is shown that a zoning board has reached contrary results on substantially similar facts, an explanation is required … . Here, the Zoning Board’s failure to set forth a factual basis as to why it was departing from its prior precedent rendered its determination arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Amdurer v Village of New Hempstead Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2017 NY Slip Op 00300, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

 

ZONING (ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)/VARIANCES (ZONING, ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO SLIP OUT OF A SWING ON A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND STOPPED THE SWING; THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SWING WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SCENARIO (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer Estopped (pursuant to Insurance Law 3420) from Disclaiming Coverage Re: Previously Incurred Defense Costs in a Personal Injury Action
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT ON THE EVE OF TRIAL CHANGED THE THEORY OF PROSECUTION FROM ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON TO CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WARRANTED STRIKING THE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; SUPREME COURT HAD IMPOSED LESS SEVERE SANCTIONS, BUT THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND IMPOSED THE ULTIMATE SANCTION–A RARE EXAMPLE OF CONDUCT DEEMED “WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS” (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

ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY... INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE...