You are here: / / THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE...
, , ,

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF VARIANCES BY THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, UNDER THE CPLR THE RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE THE TRANSCRIPT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking review of the zoning board’s denial of variances should not have been dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not provide a transcript of the proceedings. CPLR 7804 requires that the respondent provide the transcript:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the grounds that the petitioner had not provided “a copy of a transcript from the proceeding, . . . any of the submissions that he may have made in support of the requests, including the applications for any variances themselves” and had “also not provided an affidavit from a person with knowledge in support of [his] petition.”

CPLR 7804(d) permits, but does not require, the petitioner to submit affidavits or other written proof in support of the verified petition. Further, CPLR 7804(e) provides that the respondent, not the petitioner, “shall file with the answer a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings under consideration, unless such a transcript has already been filed with the clerk of the court.” Matter of D’Souza v Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2019 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 6-5-10

 

You might also like
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF HAD POSSESSION OF THE NOTE PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NEW DISCOVERY/DISCLOSURE STATUTES VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO BE HEARD ON THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY HAD AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A WAGE FREEZE TO ADDRESS A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE SCOPE OF THE WAIVER OF APPEAL BY NOT CLARIFYING THAT CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REMAIN APPEALABLE DESPITE THE WAIVER; WAIVER INVALID (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

DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CLAIM HE COULDN’T STOP BECAUSE HIS CAR SKIDDED... SURR0GATE’S COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE ADMINISTRATOR’S PETITION FOR...