Legal Opinion

Colletti v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 5, 1990PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*447We find that the petitioners have failed to come forward with proof of significant economic injury or to establish that strict compliance with the zoning law will cause "practical difficulties” (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444-445; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 596-597; Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 AD2d 582; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135, 138-139). "Proof that the ordinance caused the applicant mere inconvenience, or that the property could be utilized more profitably if an area variance were granted, is ordinarily not sufficient…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fuhst v. FoleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Human Development Services of Port Chester, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Port ChesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  3. Vivest Building Corp. v. AuwarterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. El Toro Group, LLC v. Bareburger Group, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
  2. El Toro Group, LLC v. Bareburger Group, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API