From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Falk v. Village, Scarsdale Z.B.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 13, 1998
254 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner failed to show that the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale that his proposed stationary standby generator was not a customary incidental use in an A-1 residential district, and denying him permission to install it, was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational ( see, Matter of JIJ Realty Corp. v. Costello, 239 A.D.2d 580; Matter of Burke v. Denison, 218 A.D.2d 894; Matter of Moody Hill Farms v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 199 A.D.2d 954).

The petitioner's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, which were raised for the first time in his reply papers, are not properly before this Court ( see, Turkish Airlines v. American Airlines, 249 A.D.2d 463; Galatti v. Alliance Funding Co., 228 A.D.2d 550). In any event, the unsworn and vague statements by the petitioner's mother's physician are insufficient to make even a prima facie showing of the existence of a meritorious claim under either statute.

Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Falk v. Village, Scarsdale Z.B.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 13, 1998
254 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Falk v. Village, Scarsdale Z.B.A

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT H. FALK, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE ZONING…

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

Date published: Oct 13, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 299

Citing Cases

Wind Power Ethics v. Zoning Bd.

With respect to the judgment in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.…

Pleasant Vly. v. Poughkeepsie Planning Bd.

We do not agree with Pleasant Valley's contention that Poughkeepsie improvidently exercised its discretion by…