Legal Opinion
Roginski v. Rose
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 3, 1983PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, dated May 13, 1982, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s application for a special exception permit to use his property for the precision machining of small parts. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was a rational basis for and substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead that the proposed use did not comply with the standards…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lemir Realty Corp. v. LarkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of HempsteadNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Cappadoro Land Development Corp. v. AmelkinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Ferman v. Board of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commco, Inc. v. AmelkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Rottenberg v. EdwardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Buitenkant v. RobohmAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Roginski v. RoseNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- L & M Realty v. Village of Millbrook Planning BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.