You are here: / / PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY...
,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for a variance should have been granted on financial hardship grounds, but the action alleging a regulatory taking was not ripe, an issue which can be raised on appeal for the first time. Petitioner demonstrated the character of the surrounding area had changed from residential to commercial over the past 30 years rendering the property unmarketable as residential property:

The ZBA [zoning board of appeals] actually agreed that “the location of this property on a corner may impact its value,” and its ultimate conclusion that the financial hardship was not unique seemingly ran counter to that observation … . Moreover, in light of the proof that the need for a use variance only arose decades after the property was acquired due to a gradual shift in the character of the area that rendered the permitted residential use onerous and obsolete, petitioners sufficiently alleged “that the hardship identified by [them] . . . was [not] self-created” … . Accepting the foregoing as true, as we must, petitioners stated a viable claim attacking the ZBA’s determination.

… [T]he remaining regulatory taking claim must be dismissed. The petition/complaint states, and petitioners’ arguments on appeal reflect, that the owner’s taking claim is solely premised upon a deprivation of rights afforded under the Federal Constitution (see US Const 5th Amend; 42 USC § 1983). In order for a 42 USC § 1983 claim based upon a regulatory taking to be ripe, however, it is necessary for a petitioner/plaintiff to “demonstrate that [he or] she has both received a ‘final decision regarding the application of the [challenged] regulations to the property at issue’ from ‘the government entity charged with implementing the regulations,’ and sought ‘compensation through the procedures the [s]tate has provided for doing so'”… . The denial of the application for a use variance constituted a final decision regarding the application of the zoning regulations to its property… , but there is no indication that the owner then asserted a state claim for inverse condemnation… . Thus, inasmuch as ripeness is a “matter[] pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised at any time” and the second cause of action founded upon 42 USC § 1983 is “unripe because [the owner] failed to seek compensation from the [s]tate before” asserting it… , it must be dismissed. Matter of 54 Marion Ave., LLC v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 04611, Third Dept 6-21-18

​ZONING (PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/VARIANCE (ZONING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (REGULATORY TAKING, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/REGULATORY TAKING (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (RIPENESS, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A VARIANCE ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP GROUNDS, REGULATORY TAKING CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
AFTER AN INITIAL WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, DEFENDANT BECAME INCREASINGLY UNWILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND FINALLY SAID “MAYBE” HE SHOULD GET A LAWYER BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF, FROM THAT POINT ON THE INTERROGATION VIDEO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.
Where It Was Not Clear that Grand Jury Proceedings in Which a County Employee Was Directed to Appear Involved a Criminal Matter, as Opposed to Civil Misconduct or Neglect, the County Was Required to Pay for the Employee’s Defense Pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 18
REFERENCES TO DEVIATE BEHAVIOR AND USE OF FORCE IN PETITIONER-INMATE’S CRIME AND SENTENCE INFORMATION FORM AND HIS COMPAS RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SEXUAL OFFENSES COMMITTED; THE PETITION SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED FROM HER EMPLOYMENT FOR OTHER REASONS, THE FACT THAT SHE TESTIFIED IN FAMILY COURT ABOUT THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF A JUVENILE WHICH WAS NOT AS SEVERE AS THE PLACEMENT ADVOCATED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF LOYALTY (THIRD DEPT).
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT).
Second Summary Judgment Motion to Address Deficiencies in First Motion Should Not Have Been Entertained

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

COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT). PETITIONER WAS NEVER INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES, DETERMINATION...