Sherman v. Gustafson
| Decision Date | 14 June 1968 |
| Citation | 22 N.Y.2d 793,292 N.Y.S.2d 896,239 N.E.2d 641 |
| Parties | , 239 N.E.2d 641 In the Matter of Roger SHERMAN, et al., Appellants, v. Robert GUSTAFSON, et al., constituting the Zoning Board of Appeal of the Town of Irondequoit, New York, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255.
Petitioners brought a proceeding under CPLR Article 78 against the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Irondequoit to annul a determination of the Board which denied a variance.
After petitioners, under an illegally issued building permit, had constructed a supermarket and four retail stores on their property which failed to comply with parking area requirements of zoning ordinance, Board revoked the permit and ordered petitioners to remove the retail stores. The petitioners then obtained additional land for parking and applied for area variance to permit them to use their entire building, though there was still insufficient land to comply with the ordinance. The Board, in denying the application, found that there was a significant shortage of parking areas and that any hardship suffered by petitioners was self-created.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County, Arthur E. Blauvelt, J., entered a judgment annulling the determination of the Board denying a variance and ordered the Board to grant the variance applied for.
The Appellate Division entered an order October 20, 1967 which reversed the judgment of the Special Term and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division held that in its opinion the Board was justified in denying the variance on the ground that the practical difficulty was self-created.
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany
...that respondent was attempting to increase a nonconforming use. Additionally, the board, relying on Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641, denied the variance because the hardship was Respondent thereupon commenced the instant article 78 proceeding ......
-
Banos v. Colborn
...that Banos was estopped from claiming hardship (Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641; Matter of Fina Homes v. Young, 14 Misc.2d 576, 177 N.Y.S.2d 535, affd. 7 A.D.2d 864, 182 N.Y.S.2d 300, affd. 7 N.Y.2d 845,......
-
Ullian v. Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead
...faith test should be sufficient to deal with the problem. Such a test is implicit in prior decisions. (Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641; Matter of Hoffman v. Harris, 17 N.Y.2d 138, 269 N.Y.S.2d 119, 216 N.E.2d 326; Matter of Fina Homes (Inc.) v......
-
Tier Properties Co. v. Kitchin
...factually apposite to the present case (compare, Matter of Sherman v. Gustafson, 28 A.D.2d 1082, 285 N.Y.S.2d 255, affd. 22 N.Y.2d 793, 292 N.Y.S.2d 896, 239 N.E.2d 641). Judgment affirmed, with ...