You are here: / / THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY COULD NOT REALIZE A REASONABLE...
,

THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY COULD NOT REALIZE A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY ABSENT THE USE VARIANCE ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A “DOLLAR STORE;” THE USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the property owners seeking a use variance to build a “Dollar Store” did not demonstrate the existing zoning regulations imposed unnecessary hardship on them. The proof presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) did not demonstrate the owners inability to realize a reasonable return for the property absent a use variance:

… [T]here is no evidence in the record establishing whether respondents could realize a reasonable return on the parcel if it were used for any other conforming use. Indeed, respondents’ expert did not discuss any possible use of the property other than as vacant land. Thus, inasmuch as respondents’ expert failed to discuss the possible return with respect to all uses permitted within the zoning district, respondents failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that they cannot realize a reasonable return on the property without the requested use variance … .

… The fact that respondents’ application for a use variance was limited to the two-acre parcel is “of no moment; the inquiry as to an inability to realize a reasonable return may not be segmented to examine less than all of an owner’s property rights subject to a regulatory regime” … . The expert’s failure to address respondents’ ability to obtain a reasonable return on the remaining parts of the parcel, or on other permissible uses within the zoning district, is fatal to the application. Thus, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Dean v Town of Poland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 04242, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

You might also like
THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE AFTER A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE INJURED PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONERS SOUGHT FUNDS THE DECEDENT HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE CORPORATION AS CLAIMS ON DECEDENT’S ESTATE, ALLEGING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED ANEW WHEN THE DECEDENT ACKNOWELDGED THE DEBT IN A DEPOSITION; THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS TOLL IN THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE PARTY TO BE CHARGED, NOT TO THE QUASI-CONTRACT ALLEGED BY PETITIONERS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CONVICTION UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY; DEFENDANT ACCOMPANIED A FRIEND WHO WAS TO SELL COCAINE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF SHARED INTENT WAS TOO WEAK TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUN BELT WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE TRIAL; THE LOSS OF TRIAL EXHIBITS DEMONSTRATING WHETHER THE PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES WERE EXHAUSTED IS HELD AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO SEEK A TIMELY RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT)
Defendant’s Flight in His Vehicle, Nearly Striking an Officer, Severed Any Connection with the Initial Detention and Evidence Discarded from the Vehicle Was Properly Seized
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY A MALE STUDENT ON THE SCHOOL BUS FROM KINDERGARTEN THROUGH SECOND GRADE; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL’S EVIDENCE DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER WITHOUT A HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET (FOURTH 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

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM IN THIS “POLLUTION ESCAPING... 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND UNDERSHERIFF IN THEIR OFFICIAL...