Legal Opinion · Dissent

Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Hempstead

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 25, 1950Published

1DissentDye, J.

I vote for affirmance. To reverse the action of the board of zoning appeals and annul its determination is to say that the granting of the variance was arbitrary and capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion. This we may not do on the record before us. It is axiomatic and no longer open to doubt that where there is evidence to constitute a reasonable basis for the determination the court has no right to interfere and substitute its judgment for that of the administrative board charged with the duty of making a determination (People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Valley Tit. & Mtge. Co. v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Nectow v. City of CambridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Dowsey v. Village of KensingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  4. People Ex Rel. St. Albans-Springfield Corp. v. ConnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Matter of Hickox v. GriffinNew York Court of Appeals · 1949

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API