Cord Meyer Development Co. v. Bell Bay Drugs, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1966 |
| Citation | 25 A.D.2d 744,269 N.Y.S.2d 67 |
| Parties | CORD MEYER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. BELL BAY DRUGS, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Priest & Carson, Forest Hills, for appellants; Paul J. Goodman, Forest Hills, of counsel.
Bregman & Bregman, New York City, for respondents; Isidor Enselman, New York City, of counsel.
Before UGHETTA, Acting P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by the owner of a shopping center and by a tenant therein which operated a regular, commercial pharmacy, against the owner of a building containing medical offices and a regular, commercial pharmacy and against the tenant which operated said pharmacy in said building to enjoin defendants from violating the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York by operating a regular, commercial pharmacy, as distinguished from an ethical pharmacy operated primarily to serve tenants and the patients of tenants in said building, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 17, 1965 upon the court's formal decision after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the complaint on the merits.
Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and new trial granted. No questions of fact have been considered.
The defendants are substantially in the same ownership. On or about October 1, 1963, defendant tenant opened a regular, commercial drug store or pharmacy on the ground floor of the new building owned by defendant landlord. On or about that date, medical offices in said new building were occupied by two dentists, who owned and controlled defendants, and by a physician. Apparently those medical offices were primarily on or were on the second floor. Said pharmacy was diagonally across the street from a parking lot and theatre owned by plaintiff landlord. Pursuant to a lease executed by plaintiffs in 1958, plaintiff tenant had been operating a regular, commercial drug store in the shopping center since 1960. It was alleged in the complaint that the lease executed by plaintiffs provided, among other things, for a fixed rental, plus a percentage rental, based on the volume of gross business.
The primary issue now before us is whether the operation of defendants' pharmacy and building violated the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York.
The building is in a residence use district. Pharmacies are not generally permitted in residence districts. Section 22--14 of the Zoning Resolution permits 'Use Group 4' in residence districts. Use Group 4 'consists primarily of community facilities.' Use A of Use Group 4 authorizes medical 'offices or group medical centers, including the practice of dentistry or osteopathy, limited to a location below the level of the first story ceiling, except * * *.' Use C of Use Group 4 authorizes 'Accessory Uses'. Section 12--10 of the Zoning Resolution (which contains definitions) defines accessory use as follows:
'(a) Is a use conducted on the same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related (whether located within the same or an accessory building or other structure, or as an accessory use of land), except * * * and (b) Is a use which is clearly incidental to, and customarily found in connection with, such principal use; and
(c) Is either in the same ownership as such principal use, or is operated and maintained on the same zoning lot substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners, occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal use.'
Defendants contend that the operation of the pharmacy was lawful as an accessory use pursuant to sections 22--14 and 12--10 of the Zoning Resolution and that said pharmacy did not violate the Certificate of Occupancy.
In our opinion, the operation of defendants' pharmacy was not lawful as an accessory use (cf. Matter of N.Y. Ambassador v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of New York, 281 App.Div. 342, 119 N.Y.S.2d 805, affd. 305 N.Y. 791, 113 N.E.2d 302; Matter of La Vecchia v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of New York, 26 Misc.2d 39, 204 N.Y.S.2d 429; Matter of Presnell v. Leslie, 3 N.Y.2d 384, 165 N.Y.S.2d 488, 144 N.E.2d 381).
No building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by an administrative official may condone or afford immunity for a violation of the Zoning Resolution (Marcus v. Village of Mamaroneck, 283 N.Y. 325, 28 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cord Meyer Development Co. v. Bell Bay Drugs, Inc.
...new trial must be granted (cf. Graceland Corp. v. Consolidated Laundries, supra; Fairview Hardware v. Strausman, supra).' (25 A.D.2d 744--745, 269 N.Y.S.2d 67, 69--70). It has long been held, and is generally provided in zoning ordinances or enabling acts, that the municipality may sue to e......
-
Citizens Coalition v. BD. OF ZONING ADJ.
...and must not be intrusive or obnoxious to one's neighbors. The Coalition refers us to a series of decisions. In Cord Meyer Dev. Co. v. Bell Bay Drugs, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 744, 269 N.Y.S.2d 67 (Dep't 1966), rev'd on other grounds, 20 N.Y.2d 211, 282 N.Y.S.2d 259, 229 N.E.2d 44 (1967), the court ......
-
Little Joseph Realty, Inc. v. Town of Babylon
...result of a violation of a zoning ordinance may obtain an injunction to prevent its continuance and damages (citations omitted)" (25 A.D.2d 744, 269 N.Y.S.2d 67). Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, 257 N.E.2d 870, supra did not change that rule. First and foremo......
-
Padjen v. Shipley
...77 Ariz. 310, 271 P.2d 468 (1954); Schubach v. Silver, 9 Pa.Cmwlth. 152, 305 A.2d 896, 902 (1973); Cord Meyer Development Co. v. Bell Bay Drugs, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 744, 269 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1966).2 Raimonda v. Cahn, 26 A.D.2d 549, 271 N.Y.S.2d 604 (1966).3 Note 1, supra.4 At P. 905 of 305 A.2d.5 1......