General
In the Matter of the Application of William E. Towne, Appellant, against Eugene Sherk and Others, Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Floral Park, and Edward J. Rock, as Secretary of Said Board of Zoning Appeals, Respondents, for an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to Review the Determination and Action of the Said Board of Zoning Appeals in Reversing the Determination of the Village Clerk of the Village of Floral Park and Directing the Issuance of a Permit to Philip Ehrhart and Jacob Wicks on an Appeal from the Determination of Said Village Clerk. Philip Ehrhart and Jacob Wicks, Intervenors, Respondents
256 A.D. 938·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1939·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
(February 17, 1939.)
In the Matter of the Application of William E. Towne, Appellant, against Eugene Sherk and Others, Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Floral Park, and Edward J. Rock, as Secretary of Said Board of Zoning Appeals, Respondents, for an Order Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to Review the Determination and Action of the Said Board of Zoning Appeals in Reversing the Determination of the Village Clerk of the Village of Floral Park and Directing the Issuance of a Permit to Philip Ehrhart and Jacob Wicks on an Appeal from the Determination of Said Village Clerk. Philip Ehrhart and Jacob Wicks, Intervenors, Respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for a review of a decision by a village board of zoning appeals. Order denying petitioner’s motion to include certain matters in the return of said board and granting an intervenor’s motion to strike out certain plans from said return reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and petitioner’s motion granted, without costs, to the extent of directing the inclusion in the return of the plans which were before that board, and the physical report of the premises; and if there be not one, that such a report be made, summarizing the board’s view of the premises. Intervenors’ cross-motion denied, without costs. It sufficiently appears that the plans were before the board when it acted and that a physical report is essential to an intelligent review. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.