You are here: / / TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY...
, , ,

TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined that two actions brought by the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) seeking the removal of four large industrial shipping containers from petitioner’s auto-repair-shop premises were not duplicative. Therefore the DOB’s failure to appeal the dismissal of the first summons did not preclude the second summons. The second summons was dismissed by the hearing officer but was reinstated by the OATH [NYC Office of Trials and Hearings] Appeals Unit. The First Department upheld the reversal by the Appeals Unit. [The decision covers several substantive issues not summarized here]:

Petitioners argue primarily that although the summonses cite to two different provisions of the law — a Zoning Resolution violation and a certificate of occupancy violation pursuant to Administrative Code § 28-118.3.2 — the same proof and arguments were presented at the hearings for both summonses, namely, the certificate of occupancy, photographs depicting storage of the shipping containers on the property, the argument that the shipping containers would be transformed into trucks, and the counterargument that the storage was not a permitted use. They contend that this analysis is sufficient to demonstrate the duplicative nature of the summonses. The argument is unavailing. * * *

Here … the same body of evidence is used to prove two different violations, a violation of the Zoning Resolution, which covers the permitted uses and businesses within a specific area, and a violation of the certificate of occupancy, which applies specifically to the property, and describes the legal occupancy and use of that property. Moreover, the remedy for the two summonses is not the same. The first summons demanded that petitioners discontinue the illegal use, while the second summons provided for alternative remedies — discontinue illegal use or amend the certificate of occupancy. Accordingly, the OATH Appeals Unit’s finding that the second summons was not duplicative of the first summons was not arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Karakash v Del Valle, 2021 NY Slip Op 01484, First Dept 3-11-21

 

You might also like
ALLEGATION THE DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO REFRESH THE EYEWITNESS’S RECOLLECTION LEADING TO ERRONEOUS TESTIMONY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTON FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE.
Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF THE DNA PROFILE AND UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS UPON BEING ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, RESPONDENT JUDGE DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER EXPUNGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS FALLING OBJECTS CASE DID NOT CREATE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE QUI TAM ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT BY SETTING INTEREST RATES ON BONDS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFS’ INSURANCE BROKERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE BROKERS FAILED TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE AND FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFFS OF THE DEFINITIONS AND TERMS OF THE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST 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

THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE... THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT...