You are here: / / THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA) PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION...
,

THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA) PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING IN THE SPECIAL LINCOLN SQUARE DISTRICT ON A SPLIT-LOT, I.E., A LOT THAT STRADDLES TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, EACH WITH ITS OWN LIMITATIONS ON USE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, reversing Supreme Count, determined the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) properly approved the construction of a building in the Special Lincoln Square District. The project is on a zoning lot that straddles to zoning districts, each with its own limitations on uses, a so-called split-lot:

This Court has held that a split lot is treated as a single lot when assessing compliance with a zoning requirement that applies equally to both zoning districts of the split lot and that the split-lot provision is applied on a “regulation-by-regulation basis” … . ZR § 82-34, the relevant bulk distribution regulation, provides that “[w]ithin the Special District, at least 60 percent of the total floor area permitted on a zoning lot” must be below a height of 150 feet from curb level. There is no dispute that the project complied with ZR § 82-34. Practically speaking, this provision directly regulates the distribution of a building’s floor area and indirectly regulates height by restricting much of a zoning lot’s floor area to the part of a building below a cutoff. Every square foot that needs to be below the 150-foot ceiling to comply with ZR § 82-34 reduces the number of square feet that could be above it. ,,, As noted by BSA, “the Special District’s bulk-distribution regulations do operate to reduce the height of buildings in the Special District — only not to the extent [petitioner] wish[es]” … . … BSA held that this regulation applies to both … zoning districts because it is located in a “Special District.” … ZR § 82-34’s imposition of the bulk distribution regulation within the Special Lincoln Square District creates … commonality … so as to override the split-lot provision’s prohibition against transfer of floor area between the two zoning districts, and permits the two zoning districts to be treated as one. Under these circumstances, we find that BSA’s determination to apply ZR § 82-34 to the project’s zoning lot was rational. City Club of N.Y. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 2021 NY Slip Op 04533, First Dept 7-22-21

 

You might also like
Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment of Property to Another) Interpreted to Encompass Entire Leased Premises
WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)
THE JURORS IN THIS ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CASE SAW AN INTERNET VIDEO OF DEFENDANT’S CODEFENDANT VIOLENTLY CAUSING A MAN’S DEATH; THE VIDEO HAD NOT BE INTRODUCED OR MENTIONED AT TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT (FIRST DEPT). ​
FIRST DEPT REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO, BASED PRIMARILY UPON DEFENDANT’S USE OF EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE RESOURCES WHILE IN PRISON.
THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE, HERE THE DECEDENT’S SIGNATURE ON THE GUARANTY WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN AN INTERESTED WITNESS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GUARANTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO SHOWING THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL PRIOR TO THE FALL WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE; UNDER THE FACTS, STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT, AN AGENT LICENSED TO SELL LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENT... THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT...