From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mohan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09092

Argued October 7, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington dated November 1, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a nonconforming use variance for a certain structure located on his property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated July 22, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Flynn Flynn, Huntington, N.Y. (Robert J. Flynn, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

James F. Matthews, Huntington, N.Y. (Johanna Stewart-Suchow of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Board) that he failed to meet his burden of establishing a preexisting nonconforming use of the subject property had a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Marx v. Humenik, 302 A.D.2d 528; Matter of McQuade v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 248 A.D.2d 386). Accordingly, the Board's determination was properly upheld by the Supreme Court ( see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304).

SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mohan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Huntington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Mohan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Huntington

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE E. MOHAN III, appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 596

Citing Cases

Twenty-Seven Twenty-Four Realty Corp. v. Srinivasan

Intent to resume active operations shall not affect the foregoing. Further, New York courts have consistently…

Straub v. Modelewski

The appeal from the order must be dismissed since an order made in a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not…