From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of Somerset v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1985
115 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Sedita, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O'Donnell, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and application granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondents' conversion of their property from a bargain store to a diner constituted a change of a nonconforming use under the town's zoning ordinance for which a variance was required (Matter of Off Shore Rest. Corp. v Linden, 30 N.Y.2d 160). In granting the variance the town's requirement that respondents obtain a use variance with conditions was warranted. The record indicates that two conditions imposed by the town were violated. Moreover, since respondents failed to timely file a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the conditions contained in the variance, they are foreclosed from challenging them on appeal (see, Matter of Wolfram v Abbey, 55 A.D.2d 700; Town of N. Hempstead v De Feo, 27 A.D.2d 860).


Summaries of

Town of Somerset v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1985
115 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Town of Somerset v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF SOMERSET, Appellant, v. CHARLES PERRY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1985

Citations

115 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia

We note that the use variance in this case would not require geographic expansion of Building 10, but instead…

Matter of Proskin v. Donovan

As so interpreted, petitioners argue, condition 13 (c) is void because it is a condition unrelated to the…