Barns v. Osborne
| Decision Date | 29 July 1941 |
| Citation | 286 N.Y. 403,36 N.E.2d 638 |
| Parties | BARNS v. OSBORNE et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Proceeding in the matter of Nancy S. Barns against Nelson C. Osborne and others to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of East Hampton. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 4, 1940, 260 App.Div. 926, 24 N.Y.S.2d 126, which unanimously affirmed an order of the Special Term dismissing the petition, 24 N.Y.S.2d 358, and in which appeal was denied in 260 App.Div. 1018, 24 N.Y.S.2d 1009, petitioner appeals by permission.
Orders reversed and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings. Reginald C. Smith, of Riverhead, for appellant.
Raymond A. Smith, of East Hampton, for respondent.
This proceeding was brought under article 6-A of the Village Law, 175 et seq. (Consol.Laws, ch. 64) for an order to review a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton in the county of Suffolk. Section 179-b of the statute provides: (Italics supplied.)
The decision here sought to be reviewed was filed on July 27, 1940. A petition for review thereof together with a notice that the application was one for an order of review were served upon the Board on August 14, 1940, and were made returnable at the Special Term next to be held in Suffolk county on September 7, 1940. All the parties resided in Suffolk county where also their respective attorneys had their offices.
On the return day the Special Term on a cross-motion of the Board of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it had not been presented to the court within thirty days after the filing thereof as required by the foregoing provisions of section 179-b of the Village Law. The Appellate Division affirmed. Petitioner has now brought the matter here by our leave.
We think the petition was ‘presented to the court’ in the fair sense of section 179-b when (within the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Monsey-Feager/Rouse-Waites v. McGuire
...there can be no review. 4 We have considered the authorities cited by the parties and other authorities, including Barns v. Osborne et al., 286 N.Y. 403, 36 N.E.2d 638 (1941); Ross et al. v. County Board of Arlington County, et al., 197 Va. 91, 87 S.E.2d 794 (1955) and Ballman v. Duffecy, 2......
-
Jonathan Logan, Inc. v. Stillwater Worsted Mills, Inc.
...of Brown v. City of New York, 198 Misc. 147, 148, 97 N.Y.S.2d 560, 561. Also Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. (Lopez), supra; Matter of Barns v. Osborne, supra.) An ex parte order to show cause may not be employed as a method whereby a party may extend the time expressly prescribed for the mak......
-
Ross v. County Bd. of Arlington County, 5475
...Act', which contains the provision 'shall be presented to the court'. The New York statute was construed in Barns v. Osborne, et al., 286 N.Y. 403, 36 N.E. (2d) 638, 639. The court there had under consideration that part of § 179-b which provides: 'Such petition must be presented to the cou......
-
Bolles-Texas Corp. v. Board of Standards and Appeals of City of N. Y., BOLLES-TEXAS
...the proceeding by way of notice of motion which was duly served upon the respondent within the 30-day period (see Matter of Barns v. Osborne, 286 N.Y. 403, 36 N.E.2d 638; Matter of Satin v. Bd. of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, 12 A.D.2d 526, 208 N.Y.S.2d 518; Matter of Kohn......