From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bruchhausen v. Murdock

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Jan 6, 1939
170 Misc. 187 (N.Y. Misc. 1939)

Opinion

January 6, 1939.

Abram Shlefstein, for the petitioner.

William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel [ Charles C. Weinstein and Francis J. Bloustein of counsel], for the respondents.


This is a motion to vacate an order of certiorari to review the determination of the board of standards and appeals of the city of New York, which unanimously denied petitioner's application for the erection and maintenance of a gasoline station upon unrestricted premises situated within 200 feet from the nearest exit or entrance to a public school.

The chairman of the board in my opinion correctly interpreted section 21 of the Building Zone Resolution when he stated: "As to the distance with reference to a public school, the same need exists for protection, regardless whether located in a residence, business or unrestricted district."

The omission of the closing sentence from the last paragraph, similar to that in the second paragraph of section 21, does not remove its prohibition, irrespective of the use districts.

It is evident that the danger to school children is as real in an unrestricted area as it is in a restricted district. Section 21 of the Building Zone Resolution was framed for the safety, health and protection of school children. This section, therefore, must be liberally construed in favor of the public for whose benefit it was enacted.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.


Summaries of

Matter of Bruchhausen v. Murdock

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Jan 6, 1939
170 Misc. 187 (N.Y. Misc. 1939)
Case details for

Matter of Bruchhausen v. Murdock

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of RICHARD H. BRUCHHAUSEN, Petitioner…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Jan 6, 1939

Citations

170 Misc. 187 (N.Y. Misc. 1939)
9 N.Y.S.2d 923

Citing Cases

Matter of Stefco Realty v. Commerdinger

This section, therefore, must be liberally construed in favor of the public for whose benefit it was…

Matter of Gencarelli v. Balint

General Ordinance No. 6-1921 must be liberally construed in favor of the public for whose benefit it was…