From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 31, 1963
194 N.E.2d 687 (N.Y. 1963)

Summary

In Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley (13 N.Y.2d 973, revg. 18 A.D.2d 917) the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice [now Presiding Justice] CHRIST in this court was approved and a variance annulled by the Court of Appeals where a business use (a shopping center) had been permitted to be located throughout an entire block in a residential district for a 20-year term.

Summary of this case from Van Deusen v. Jackson

Opinion

Argued October 7, 1963

Decided October 31, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOHN E. CONE, J.

David I. Shivitz and Albert Kalter for appellants.

Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel ( Alfred Weinstein and Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for respondents.

William J. Calise and Francis R. Di Prima for intervenor-respondent.


Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term reinstated, without costs, upon the dissenting memorandum at the Appellate Division. No opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, FOSTER and SCILEPPI.


Summaries of

Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 31, 1963
194 N.E.2d 687 (N.Y. 1963)

In Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley (13 N.Y.2d 973, revg. 18 A.D.2d 917) the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice [now Presiding Justice] CHRIST in this court was approved and a variance annulled by the Court of Appeals where a business use (a shopping center) had been permitted to be located throughout an entire block in a residential district for a 20-year term.

Summary of this case from Van Deusen v. Jackson

In Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley (13 N.Y.2d 973, revg. 18 A.D.2d 917), cited by the majority, the variance permitted the construction of a business structure in a residential zone. Clearly, as Mr. Justice [now Presiding Justice] CHRIST pointed out, that was not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the applicable zoning resolution.

Summary of this case from Van Deusen v. Jackson
Case details for

Matter of Beach Haven Jewish Center v. Foley

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BEACH HAVEN JEWISH CENTER et al., Appellants, v. MAX H…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 31, 1963

Citations

194 N.E.2d 687 (N.Y. 1963)
194 N.E.2d 687
244 N.Y.S.2d 778

Citing Cases

Van Deusen v. Jackson

The size of the parcel to be benefited by the variance thus becomes a significant factor. In Matter of Beach…

Matter of Cohalan v. Schermerhorn

A variance may be regarded as a zoning amendment if it alters in any fundamental and substantial respect the…