Legal Opinion
550 Halstead Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 23, 2003PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Because nonconforming uses are viewed as detrimental to zoning schemes, public policy favors their reasonable restriction and eventual elimination (see Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva, 89 NY2d 411, 417 [1996]). Accordingly, municipalities may adopt measures regulating nonconforming uses and may, in a reasonable fashion, eliminate them (see Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise, 51 NY2d 278, 287 [1980]). Here, one of the purposes of the Town of Harrison’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan is to promote…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Toys" R" US v. SilvaNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. WeiseNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
3Cited by16 opinions
- Costa v. CallahanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Matter of Sand Land Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of SouthamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- McDonald v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of IslipAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Steiert Enters., Inc. v. City of Glen CoveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Jones v. Town of CarrollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.