From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sullivan v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued April 25, 2001.

May 21, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown, dated May 19, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated December 15, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Donald Brenner, Tappan, N.Y., for appellants.

James K. Riley, Town Attorney, Orangeburg, N.Y. (Michael J. Fury of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown that the petitioners were required to obtain a use variance, rather than an area variance, to convert their detached garage to a second residence was neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the Zoning Code of the Town of Orangetown (see, Matter of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v. Gliedman, 62 N.Y.2d 539, 545).

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, SMITH and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Sullivan v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Sullivan v. Duffy

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT SULLIVAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN DUFFY, ETC.…

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

Matter of Merritt v. Duffy

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The determination to deny the petitioner's application for…

Matter of Doran v. Lewis

The height of the proposed building is approximately 27 feet, more than twice the height permitted under the…