From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Berko v. Kern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1995
215 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 8, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Smithtown (hereinafter the Board) properly determined that the applicant, Robert Strain, was entitled to the requested area and frontage variances under the doctrine of single and separate ownership. Although the parcels in question were joined at the rear, thus forming a "back to back split", the finding by the Board that the record did not establish the existence of a merger during the period of common ownership is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of McDermott v Rose, 148 A.D.2d 615, 615-616; Matter of Barretto v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 123 A.D.2d 692; Matter of Bexson v Board of Zoning Appeals, 28 A.D.2d 848, 849, affd 21 N.Y.2d 961).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Berko v. Kern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1995
215 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Berko v. Kern

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EDWARD BERKO et al., Appellants, v. ROY M. KERN, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 575

Citing Cases

Teixeira v. DeChance

The evidence before the ZBA established that the properties previously shared a fence, sheds, and a playset.…

Harn Food, LLC v. Dechance

The two lots have been held in common ownership since 1948, and the petitioner presented no evidence to…