Legal Opinion
Village Board v. Jarrold
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 16, 1981PublishedCited by 119 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Cooke.
Dispositive on this appeal is the well-established rule that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible uses. Without such evidence, a grant of a use variance by a zoning board is not justified.
Respondent, Ronald Cosser, applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Fayetteville for permission to conduct commercial activity on his residentially zoned land. In support of the application respondent produced the testimony of an…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- People Ex Rel. Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. WalshNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the HempsteadNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Matter of Levy v. Bd. of Standards AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by119 opinions
- Northern Westchester Professional Park Associates v. Town of BedfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Dreikausen v. Zoning Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- St. Onge v. DonovanNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Matthew v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1986
114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.