Village of Bronxville v. Francis
| Decision Date | 07 June 1956 |
| Citation | 1 N.Y.2d 839,153 N.Y.S.2d 220 |
| Parties | , 135 N.E.2d 724 VILLAGE OF BRONXVILLE et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Clarence FRANCIS et al., as the Board of Appeals of the Village of Bronxville, Defendants, Pondfield Road Company, Inc., et al., Defendants-Intervenors- Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 1 A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906.
The Village of Bronxville and members of the Board of Trustees of the village brought a proceeding against the members of the Board of Appeals of the village and others to review a determination of the Board of Appeals granting a variance in a local zoning ordinance so as to permit the construction of a bank building containing floor area in excess of that amount permitted by the ordinance.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Westchester County, Robert Doscher, J., 206 Misc. 339, 134 N.Y.S.2d 59, entered an order adverse to defendants-intervenors, and they appealed.
The Appellate Division, Ughetta, J., 1 A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906, modified and affirmed the order and held that where Board of Appeals found on substantial evidence that conformance to the ordinance created practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, such findings gave finality to the variance granted and that determination should not have been disturbed on groung that there was no proof of unique hardship.
The village and members of Board of Trustees appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that variance was unlawful because the hardship, if any, was common to all the properties in the district, and that variance was unlawful because the hardship, if any, was self-imposed, and that variance was unlawful because there was no showing that a reasonable return could not be obtained from a building constructed within the limitations of the ordinance, and that variance was unlawful because of failure to show that a better return or that any net return at all could be obtained from any building constructed in disregard of one or more of the provisions of the ordinance, and that the variance was unlawful because the Board of Appeals relied in part on its personal knowledge of facts, the nature of which it never disclosed, and that variance was unlawful because it did not observe the spirit of the ordinance.
William W. Owens, New York City (William W. Owens, Anthony B. Kuklin, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Close, Griffiths, McCarthy & Gaynor, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commco, Inc. v. Amelkin
...Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 206 Misc. 339, 134 N.Y.S.2d 59, mod. 1 A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 839, 153 N.Y.S.2d 220, 135 N.E.2d 724; Matter of Nassau Children's House v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 77 A.D.2d 898, 430 N.Y.S.2d 683, supra; Matter of Lerrick v. E......
-
Sasso v. Osgood
... ... a demonstration of "practical difficulties" in area variance cases (see, Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 238, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906, affd 1 N.Y.2d 839, 153 N.Y.S.2d 220, ... ...
-
Point Lookout Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead
...than that theretofore required was judicially enunciated in Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, 150 N.Y.S.2d 906, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 839, 153 N.Y.S.2d 220, 135 N.E.2d 724, denials of applications for area variances by zoning boards have been frequently challenged in the courts, but there have ......
-
Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany
... ... Robert E. DELANY et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals ... of the Village of Scarsdale, et al., Appellants ... Court of Appeals of New York ... May 26, 1971 ... Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236 (150 N.Y.S.2d 906)).' This court affirmed the order of the Appellate ... ...