Legal Opinion

Wallach v. Wright

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

Decided January 24, 2012PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]). In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board is required by Town Law § 267-b (3) (b) to engage in a balancing test “weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. Ifrah v. UtschigNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Pecoraro v. Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Kaiser v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  5. Roberts v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nathan v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Russell GardensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. Matter of Kwas v. New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Servs.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Matter of Palmer v. Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API