Legal Opinion

Rutland Parkway, Inc. v. Murdock

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

Decided March 15, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. The rule adopted in Matter of McGarry v. Walsh (213 App. Div. 289) and in Matter of Riker v. Board of Standards & Appeals (225 id. 570) is not applicable to the present case. Here new conditions have arisen, due to changes in the neighborhood and the use of adjacent property, so that the application is in effect based on a new state of facts instead of constituting a reopening of a matter once decided. Furthermore, the granting of a variance is hedged about with conditions and limitations. (See Matter of Riverside St. Clair Corp. v. Walsh, 131 Misc.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McGarry v. WalshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
  2. Riverside St. Clair Corp. v. WalshNew York Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Riverside St. Clair Corp. v. WalshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Whittle v. Board of Zoning AppealsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  2. Fopeano v. MurdockNew York Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API