You are here: / / THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED...
,

THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the town zoning board of appeals, determined the board made no attempt to accommodate the application for religious use of a single-family home. The application sought to change the use of the property from “one family” to “place of worship accessory to one family” (a synagogue):

“[W]hile religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use than an application for another use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made” … . “[E]ducational and religious institutions are presumed to have a beneficial effect on the community” … . “[T]his presumption can be rebutted ‘with evidence of a significant impact on traffic congestion, property values, municipal services and the like'” … .

Here, the record reflects that the Board denied the petitioner’s application without making any attempt to accommodate the proposed religious use … . Despite the conditions proposed by the petitioner to mitigate the impact on the surrounding community, the Board denied the petitioner’s application in its entirety, even though the proposed religious use could have been substantially accommodated … . Furthermore, the evidence, taken as a whole, was insufficient to rebut the presumed beneficial effect of the proposed religious use … . Matter of Sephardic Synagogue of Plainview v Byrne, 2026 NY Slip Op 00903, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Although religious institutions are not exempt from zoning laws, greater flexibility in evaluating a petition for religious use is required. Here no attempt was made to accommodate the change of use from “one family” to “place of worship accessory to one family” and the matter was remitted to the zoning board of appeals for such consideration.

 

You might also like
INITIAL ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT WAS TIMELY BUT DEFECTIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT REST ON GAPS IN THE OPPOSING PARTY’S PAPERS; MOVING PARTY MUST ADDRESS EVERY NECESSARY ELEMENT WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROOF.
Local Law Prohibiting Use of Groundwater Outside Village Preempted by State Law
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO AN ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE GUILTY PLEA ENTERED BY A NON-TESTIFYING PARTICIPANT IN THE SHOOTING (DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM); DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST THE ACCOMPLICE JURY INSTRUCTION (WHICH REQUIRES CORROBORATION OF THE ACCOMPLICE’S TESTIMONY) OR THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE WAS NOT BRADY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (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

THE YOUTH PART OF COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT... THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND FOUND THERE WAS “GOOD...