Servodidio v. Board of Appeals of Town of Somers
| Decision Date | 02 November 1955 |
| Citation | 146 N.Y.S.2d 125 |
| Parties | Application of Catherine SERVODIDIO, Petitioner, For a Certiorari Order against the BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF SOMERS, County of Westchester, New York and Henry V. Kurtz, Chairman, Laureson La Porte, Joseph Lieto, Otto E. Korgel, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Adolph I. King, Mahopac, for petitioner.
Chambers & Chambers, New York City, for respondents.
This is an application to review and annul a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Somers in revoking a permit for a noncommercial piggery previously issued to petitioner.
On February 9, 1955, the Board issued to petitioner a permit for a noncommercial piggery, although it found as a fact that a commercial venture was being carried on. Thereafter, being of the opinion that it exceeded its authority, the Board attempted to revoke the permit without notice or hearing. Its purported decision of revocation was annulled by this Court.
Thereafter, upon notice given in the same manner as on the original hearing, a rehearing was scheduled for August 20, 1955. This rehearing was the result of a resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Board held on July 9, 1955. Notice of the rehearing was duly given and on the scheduled date the Board proceeded with its consideration of the matter. Thereafter, it revoked the permit granted by it on February 9, 1955, without prejudice to an application for a permit under the Zoning Ordinance.
Petitioner attacks the revocation on several grounds, some of which need not even be discussed. Initially, she claims that the Board had no power to rehear the matter because, acting in good faith on the basis of the permit, certain improvements were made giving her a vested right which could not be disturbed. If the petitioner made any improvements, their nature does not appear. At any rate, she never had authority under the permit issued, or under any other permit, to alter, modify or construct any improvement. What she did, may be considered, by reasonable inference, if not by actual finding, illegal and hence of no avail to her.
Petitioner also claims a prior, vested nonconforming use in the premises. The respondents, the Board, had no power to make a determination of this claim and could not consider it. Foss v. Town of Oyster Bay, N.Y.L.J. June 22, 1950, page 2222.
Finally, petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the enactment of the ordinance respecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Horse & Carriage Ass'n v. City of New York, Dept. of Consumer Affairs
...subjected to statutes, regulations, and ordinances, so too can the circumstances under which one may keep pigs (Servodidio v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Somers, 146 N.Y.S.2d 125), bees (Olmsted v. Rich, 6 N.Y.S. 826) or pigeons (People v. Benincasa, 63 Misc.2d 648, 313 N.Y.S.2d In this case,......
-
Schnapp v. Lefkowitz
...police power has been held to be properly exercised in prohibiting the raising of pigs (Servodidio v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Somers, Sup., 146 N.Y.S.2d 125) or the keeping of bees (Olmsted v. Rich, Sup., 6 N.Y.S. 826) or the breeding of pigeons (People v. Benincasa, 63 Misc.2d 648,......