Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
In the Matter of Stanley Cohen et al., Appellants, v. Roger H. Bohrer et al., Respondents
249 A.D.2d 388670 N.Y.S.2d 794·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1998·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
In the Matter of Stanley Cohen et al., Appellants, v Roger H. Bohrer et al., Respondents.
[670 NYS2d 794]
[MAJORITY]
—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated January 29, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for a special use permit, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 19, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington that the petitioners’ proposed business use of their residential property was not “similar * * * by reason of education, training and experience” to those home occupations which are set forth in the zoning ordinance at issue was neither unreasonable, irrational, nor an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 NY2d 823; Matter of Simon v Board of Appeals, 208 AD2d 931; Corter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 AD2d 184). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.