Rembar v. Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Citation148 A.D.2d 619,539 N.Y.S.2d 81
PartiesIn the Matter of Charles REMBAR, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON, Respondent, Daniel Rose, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
Decision Date20 March 1989

Page 81

539 N.Y.S.2d 81
148 A.D.2d 619
In the Matter of Charles REMBAR, Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF EAST HAMPTON, Respondent,
Daniel Rose, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department.
March 20, 1989.

Rembar & Curtis, New York City (Mark W. Budwig, of counsel), for appellant.

Crimmins & Baisley, Riverhead (Edith C. Rysdyk, of counsel), for respondent.

Esseks, Hefter & Angel, Riverhead (William W. Esseks and John M. Wagner, of counsel), for intervenors-respondents.

Page 82

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton, dated July 17, 1987, which allowed the intervenors-respondents to construct certain additions on their property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Friedenberg, J.), dated December 14, 1987, which dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, and the application for a variance is denied.

In 1986 the intervenors Daniel and Joanna S. Rose bought a certain parcel of real property in the Village of East Hampton which is contiguous to property owned by the petitioner herein. The Roses' property is improved by a one and one-half story frame dwelling built in 1947, a two story frame dwelling which was probably built in the 1800s (hereinafter the cottage) and a garage which had been converted to a dwelling unit. Because the property is situated in the village's "AA" residential district, which restricts use to "a single detached dwelling for not more than one family" (see, Village of East Hampton Zoning Code § 57-4[A][1] ), the use of the property is nonconforming.

In April 1987 the Roses submitted an application for a variance from the provisions of § 57-4.A(1) in order, among other things, to extend a dormer on the cottage and to install a foundation under the building.

On June 19, 1987, the respondent board held a public hearing on the Roses' application. It was conceded at the hearing that the subject property violated not only the use restrictions prescribed for the zoning district but that it violated the setback requirements as well. In support of the application, the Roses stated they intended to use one of the structures on the property as a retirement home and that the remaining structures were to be used by their four adult children. However, in a decision dated July 17, 1987, to the extent relevant to this appeal, the board found that the cottage constituted a preexisting use and that the addition of the foundation and dormers to the cottage were "insignificant" and would not "increase the intensity of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Defalco v. Dechance, No. 11–CV–05502 (ADS)(ETB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 13 Junio 2013
    ...is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.’ ” ( Id., citing Matter of Rembar v. Board of Appeals of Vil. Of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 620, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81 (2d Dept. 1989)). In the interim, Schlossberg brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Defendants, DeFalco, and Matth......
  • Ahmed v. Town of Oyster Bay, No. 12–CV–3654 JFBWDW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ; see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous buil......
  • Tarik Ahmed, Timothy A. Lester, & Locust Valley Tobacco, Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, No. 12–CV–3654 (JFB)(WDW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous build......
  • NEEDREPLACE, No. 12–CV–3654 (JFB)(WDW).
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous build......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Defalco v. Dechance, No. 11–CV–05502 (ADS)(ETB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 13 Junio 2013
    ...is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.’ ” ( Id., citing Matter of Rembar v. Board of Appeals of Vil. Of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 620, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81 (2d Dept. 1989)). In the interim, Schlossberg brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Defendants, DeFalco, and Matth......
  • Ahmed v. Town of Oyster Bay, No. 12–CV–3654 JFBWDW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ; see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous buil......
  • Tarik Ahmed, Timothy A. Lester, & Locust Valley Tobacco, Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, No. 12–CV–3654 (JFB)(WDW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous build......
  • NEEDREPLACE, No. 12–CV–3654 (JFB)(WDW).
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • 18 Marzo 2014
    ...a prohibitory code is enacted, does not extend to subsequent construction.” Matter of Rembar v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of E. Hampton, 148 A.D.2d 619, 539 N.Y.S.2d 81, 82–83 (N.Y.App.Div.1989); see also DeFalco, 949 F.Supp.2d at 431–32 (citing cases). Under the Town Code, a “dangerous build......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT