Davydov v. Mammina
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
“Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; see Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 771 [2005]). Thus, the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 and n 2 [1995]).
*679Pursuant to Town Law §…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- MATTER OF SASSO v. OsgoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Ifrah v. UtschigNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Pecoraro v. Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Halperin v. City of New RochelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Tall Trees Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chynn v. DeChanceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Matter of Fortunato v. Town of Hempstead Bd. of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Matter of Town of Southampton v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. ConservationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Matter of Town of Southampton v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. ConservationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- CHRISTIAN AIRMEN, INC. v. TOWN OF NEWSTEAD ZONING BOARD OF APAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.