Faith for Today, Inc., Application of
| Decision Date | 20 June 1960 |
| Citation | 204 N.Y.S.2d 751,11 A.D.2d 718 |
| Parties | Application of FAITH FOR TODAY, INC., Appellant, to review a determination of Harris H. Murdock, Edwin W. Kleinert, Max H. Foley, Harold R. Sleeper and Hugh P. Fox, constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Coombs & Wilson, Brooklyn, for appellant; James J. Milligan, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City, for respondents; Alfred Weinstein, New York City, of counsel.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, CHRIST and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, which affirmed a determination of the Superintendent of Buildings denying petitioner's application for an alteration permit, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 28, 1959, dismissing its petition and sustaining the determination of the respondent Board.
Petitioner, a membership corporation, is a branch of the Seventh Day Adventists denomination and is a philanthropic and eleemosynary institution. Its purpose, as stated in its certificate of incorporation, is to conduct religious services through the medium of television or radio, and to operate and maintain a school and facilities to teach moral and religious knowledge by correspondence and other instrumentalities.
In 1952, petitioner acquired the premises in question, located at 71st Ave. and 110th St., Forest Hills, Queens, in a residence use district. The premises then included a 2 1/2 story dwelling. Pursuant to approval, petitioner thereafter altered the building for use as an office and place to carry out its functions. In 1956, petitioner filed plans for the further alteration of the premises by adding a two-story and cellar extension and expanding the present use to include a dining room, kitchen, printing shop, storage room, chapel, Bible classroom and private garage and parking area. The plans were disapproved by the Superintendent of Buildings on the ground that the proposed conversion to use as an office building was contrary to section 3 of article 2 of the New York City Zoning Resolution, which prohibits the erection of buildings other than dwellings, but with certain exceptions. Petitioner sought reconsideration on the ground that it is a philanthropic and eleemosynary institution and as such its proposed use to carry out its functions is permitted under the exceptions. Reconsideration was refused. On appeal, the Board of Standards and Appeals affirmed the determination of the Superintendent of Buildings and denied the application by a vote of 3 to 2 on the recommendation of a committee which, after inspection of the premises, was of the opinion that, irrespective of petitioner's purpose, 'the actual producing of material, telecasts and television programs for propagation of the Gospel' is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slevin v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center
...Sup., 157 N.Y.S.2d 435, 438); a religious correspondence school, including necessary publishing machinery (Application of Faith For Today, Inc., 11 A.D.2d 718, 204 N.Y.S.2d 751, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 761, 215 N.Y.S.2d 70, 174 N.E.2d 743); and a children's day care center for working mothers in dis......
-
South Woodbury Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. American Institute of Physics, Inc.
...and Zoning was without power to deny the building permit upon the ground asserted in any event (see Matter of Faith for Today, Inc. v. Murdock, 11 A.D.2d 718, 204 N.Y.S.2d 751). Thus, the motion for preliminary injunctive relief is denied. The Association has not shown either a clear legal ......
-
Yeshiva & Mesivta Toras Chaim v. Rose
...have been very flexible in their interpretation of religious uses under local zoning ordinances (see, e.g., Matter of Faith For Today v. Murdock, 11 A.D.2d 718, 204 N.Y.S.2d 751, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 761, 215 N.Y.S.2d 70, 174 N.E.2d 743; Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, supra; Matter of Di......
-
Burlington Assembly of God Church v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment Tp. of Florence
... ... However, the board itself is not immune. T & M Homes, Inc. v. Twp. of Mansfield, 162 N.J.Super. 497, 393 A.2d 613 (Law Div.1978); ... Matter of Faith ... For Today, 11 A.D.2d 718, 204 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1960), aff'd 9 N.Y.2d ... ...