Legal Opinion
Mack v. Board of Appeals
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 21, 2005PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Phillip R. Rumsey, J.
Respondent Michael Sweeney is a licensed pest exterminator, who for some time had operated his business from his home in the Town of Homer. When he and his wife, respondent Kelli Sweeney, moved to a new location in the town, he sought a ruling from the Town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) as to whether his vocational activities would fall within the applicable definition of a “Home Professional Office,” which is a permitted accessory use for the agriculturally-zoned property (Homer Town Code § 109-33 [B]; § 109-6 [A]). The CEO found that Sweeney’s…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v. Board of Zoning & AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. v. WalkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Chase Scientific Research, Inc. v. Nia Group, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- United States v. LawsSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mack v. Board of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Brobst v. City of Lyndhurst, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2018
- Brobst v. LyndhurstOhio Court of Appeals · 2018