Ryan & Cable, Inc. v. Montesano

Decision Date18 February 1971
Citation36 A.D.2d 680,319 N.Y.S.2d 770
PartiesApplication of RYAN & CABLE, INC., et al., Respondents v. Michael J. MONTESANO, Jr., et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Buffalo, New York, Appellants, City Mission Society, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Anthony Manguso, Clarence S. Wertheimer, Buffalo, for appellant.

Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Buffalo, for respondents, except John E. Smith Sons, Inc.

Magavern, Magavern, Lowe & Beilewech, William J. Magavern, II, Buffalo, for respondent John E. Smith Sons., Div. of Hobam, Inc.

Fudeman & Renaldo, James I. Myers, Buffalo, for intervenor-appellant City Mission Society.

Before DEL VECCHIO, J.P., and MARSH, GABRIELLI, MOULE and HENRY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

The variance being sought was, in essence, an area variance, and upon the facts in this case the principle of self-created hardship is inapplicable (Matter of Willits v. Schoepflin, 23 A.D.2d 868, 259 N.Y.S.2d 297; Matter of Gapinski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Cheektowaga, 3 A.D.2d 976, 162 N.Y.S.2d 945, app. dism. 3 N.Y.2d 920, 167 N.Y.S.2d 936, 145 N.E.2d 878). However, since the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Zoning Board of Appeals were not met or followed, the Board lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its previous denial of the variance and the permit to alter the premises in question. In passing, we take further note of the absence of any evidence upon the new hearing which could not be presented or was not available at the time of the initial hearing (cf. Matter of McGarry v. Walsh, 213 App.Div. 289, 210 N.Y.S. 286.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Douglaston Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Galvin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 1973
    ...it constitutes substantial new evidence and it is not a valid basis upon which to reopen the hearing (cf. Matter of Ryan & Cable v. Montesano, 36 A.D.2d 680, 319 N.Y.S.2d 770). SAMUEL RABIN, P.J., and MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ., HOPKINS, J., concurs in the result, with the followin......
  • King v. Ees-Tee Restaurant, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 18, 1971

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