Legal Opinion

In re Heyman

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFrankenthaler, J.

The original application for variation of the Building Zone Resolution was made under sections 7-b and 21. The minutes of the hearing before the board of standards and appeals showed that the board considered the fact that the building in question was partly in a business district and partly in a residence district. The very resolution denying the application for variation and affirming the decision of the superintendent of buildings recites that “ the board deems that applicant is not entitled to relief under sections 7-b and 21.” Nevertheless application was made for “ reopening ” of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re RikerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  2. People ex rel. Ridgeway v. CortelyouNew York Supreme Court · 1862
  3. People ex rel. Rogers v. County JudgeNew York Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. MORTON v. Mayor & Council of Tp. of ClarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
  2. Ellsworth Realty Co. v. KramerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
  3. Hoerner v. TormeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  4. Orange County Publications Division of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Council of NewburghNew York Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Heyman v. WalshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API