From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gregory v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Cambria

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 14, 1982
57 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Decided October 14, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, CHARLES J. HANNIGAN, J.

Edwin Shoemaker for Board of Appeals of Town of Cambria, appellant.

William M. Feigenbaum for Thomas Carter, appellant.

Kenneth F. Astarita for respondents.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of that court ( 87 A.D.2d 1000). We note, in addition, that the arguments now made concerning the "presumption of regularity" of the actions of government officials and the conclusive effect of petitioners' failure to reply to the Statute of Limitations defense may not be raised for the first time on appeal to this court. Moreover, we find it unnecessary to determine whether a local zoning ordinance may limit the more general provisions of the Town Law stating the standards under which a variance may be granted. The evidence before the board of appeals was insufficient to support the grants of variances under the standards provided in either the Town Law (§ 267, subd 5) or the zoning ordinance.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Gregory v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Cambria

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 14, 1982
57 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Matter of Gregory v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Cambria

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SHIRLEY GREGORY et al., Respondents, v. BOARD OF APPEALS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 14, 1982

Citations

57 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1982)
456 N.Y.S.2d 39
442 N.E.2d 437

Citing Cases

Lo Guidice v. Wallace

The statement indicates that its present use results in a cash flow as a per cent of equity invested of 3.6%,…

Grout v. Visum Dev. Grp. LLC

However, it is undisputed that no determination of such finding was ever filed. As General City Law § 81–a…