From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Cashy v. Goehringer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02740

Argued March 6, 2003.

March 31, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold dated June 7, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated March 5, 2002, which granted the petition and directed the issuance of a building permit subject to any reasonable conditions deemed necessary.

Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Frank A. Isler of counsel), for appellants.

Charles R. Cuddy, Riverhead, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Southold Town Code § 100-239.4(A)(1) prohibits "structures," such as pools (see Southold Town Code § 100-13), from being constructed within 100 feet of the top of a bluff adjacent to Long Island Sound. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, this zoning ordinance, which was amended to apply to "structures" after the Supreme Court issued its judgment, must be applied to the instant matter (see Matter of Pressman v. Gunther, 243 A.D.2d 634).

Weighing the factors set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3), the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold determined that the petitioners were not entitled to an area variance. Their determination on that issue was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in annulling that determination and in directing that the variance be granted.

ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Cashy v. Goehringer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Cashy v. Goehringer

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF HARRY CASHY, ET AL., respondents, v. GERARD P…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 31, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 865

Citing Cases

IN RE KOGEL v ZBA OF HUNTINGTON

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly noted that local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering…

In re Appl. of Olson v. Scheyer

A determination may be set aside only where the record reveals that the Board acted illegally or arbitrarily,…