From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of DeBeer v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 1996
226 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 29, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The intervenors sought to remodel and add to their restaurant and bar, which is located in a residential neighborhood. The use of the property is a pre-existing non-conforming use. Contrary to the intervenors' contention, the recitation by their attorney at the hearing of the costs of operating the restaurant and bar, without any evidence of how those costs affect their return, is not sufficient to establish an unnecessary hardship ( Matter of Village Bd. v. Jarrold, 53 N.Y.2d 254, 260; see also, Matter of Board of Commrs. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 188 A.D.2d 464). Thus, as the Supreme Court found, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals is arbitrary and capricious ( see, CPLR 7803).

The intervenors' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of DeBeer v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 1996
226 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of DeBeer v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROY DeBEER et al., Respondents, v. ZONING BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Apr 29, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 404

Citing Cases

In re Ferruggia

2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a…