From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Contino v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 1, 1970
262 N.E.2d 221 (N.Y. 1970)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Contino the court expressly adopted the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division (33 A.D.2d 1043) which, on analysis of Fulling, concluded that decision did not mandate variances in all financial loss cases particularly "where * * * the hardship was self-created" (p. 1044).

Summary of this case from Matter Cherry Hill Homes v. Barbiere
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

Submitted June 2, 1970

Decided July 1, 1970

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, HENRY TASKER, J.

Saul Horowitz, Corporation Counsel, for appellant.

Daniel S. Lerner and Melvin B. Lippe for respondents.

Order, insofar as it affirmed the judgment entered upon the decision at Trial Term, reversed, without costs, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Nassau County, with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant declaring the Building Zone Ordinance of the Incorporated Village of Hempstead constitutional insofar as it applies to the plaintiffs' property.

All concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.

Summaries of

Contino v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 1, 1970
262 N.E.2d 221 (N.Y. 1970)

In Contino the court expressly adopted the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division (33 A.D.2d 1043) which, on analysis of Fulling, concluded that decision did not mandate variances in all financial loss cases particularly "where * * * the hardship was self-created" (p. 1044).

Summary of this case from Matter Cherry Hill Homes v. Barbiere

In Contino, as at bar, the property owners owned an oversize plot which they wished to divide into smaller parcels; in Contino, as at bar, each of the resulting parcels was larger than the minimum area required by the zoning ordinance; in Contino the nonconforming resulting parcel was nonconforming only with respect to one front yard, while at bar the nonconforming resulting parcel does not meet the requirements with respect to the rear yard, the height of the building, the area of the building, and the location of the cesspool.

Summary of this case from Matter of Young v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
Case details for

Contino v. Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET CONTINO et al., Respondents, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 1, 1970

Citations

262 N.E.2d 221 (N.Y. 1970)
262 N.E.2d 221
314 N.Y.S.2d 15

Citing Cases

Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany

peration of the ordinance, they are entitled to a variance unless the zoning authorities can point to some…

Matter of 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v. Zaino

It is settled that the courts will not interfere with the determination made by a zoning board — or other…

22 Citing Cases