From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Moundroukas v. Nadel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1996
223 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 22, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, the owner of an irregular parcel of property in Westchester County, submitted two alternative plans to the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenburgh (hereinafter ZBA) seeking numerous variances including, inter alia, a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and certain setback variances. After a hearing, at which evidence was adduced that indicated that the petitioner's requested variances would, inter alia, result in an unacceptable exacerbation of the already congested and hazardous traffic conditions in the area, the ZBA denied the petitioner's application. We now affirm.

Contrary to the petitioner's assertions on appeal, the ZBA's determination had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309; Town Law § 267-b).

We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Moundroukas v. Nadel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1996
223 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Moundroukas v. Nadel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SARANTOS MOUNDROUKAS, Appellant, v. ROBERT B. NADEL et…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
636 N.Y.S.2d 843

Citing Cases

Rivero v. Voelker

Here, the ZBA weighed the relevant statutory factors and its determination was rational, and not arbitrary or…

FNR Home Construction Corp. v. Downs

Here, the Board weighed the relevant statutory factors and its determination was rational, and not arbitrary…