Loder v. Goodday
| Decision Date | 02 March 1967 |
| Citation | 279 N.Y.S.2d 182,19 N.Y.2d 727,225 N.E.2d 887 |
| Parties | , 225 N.E.2d 887 In the Matter of George E. LODER, Sr., et al., Appellants, v. Gerald G. GOODDAY, Chairman, et al., members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, etc., Respondents, for a judgment, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 25 A.D.2d 671, 268 N.Y.S.2d 507.
Proceeding was brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review and annul a determination of the zoning board of appeals of town granting a special permit for construction of a Masonic Temple in a district of the town that was zoned 'R--35' residential.
Under the zoning ordinance of the town one of the uses for which a special permit might be granted by the Board in an 'R--35' district was neighborhood or community centers serving primarily local residents, such as golf courses, tennis clubs, swimming clubs, and community theaters, on plots of not less than five acres of land.
The Board made findings that nonprofit fraternal organization, which owned property of more than five acres, could construct a Masonic Temple under the ordinance.
The proceeding was transferred by the Supreme Court, Special Term, Rockland County, to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division entered an order confirming the determination of the Board.
The petitioners, who were owners of property in the area of the proposed Masonic Temple, appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting the special permit.
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zon. Adjust.
...N.J.Super. 483, 149 A.2d 620, 627 (1959);8 Loder v. Goodday, 25 A.D.2d 671, 268 N.Y.S.2d 507, 509 (1966), aff'd mem., 19 N.Y.2d 727, 279 N.Y.S.2d 182, 225 N.E.2d 887 (1967).9 Cf. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lake Forest, Inc., 305 F.2d 814, 818 (4th Cir. That there is a difference be......
-
DeBlois v. Wallace
...permits were improper under these circumstances (see Matter of Loder v. Goodday, 25 A.D.2d 671, 268 N.Y.S.2d 507, affd., 19 N.Y.2d 727, 279 N.Y.S.2d 182, 225 N.E.2d 887). The remaining contentions raised by petitioners have been examined and found to be without Determination confirmed, and ......
- Taylor v. New York Transit Authority