Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Development
ZBA Not Obligated to Explain Difference in Treatment
Matter of Davydov v. Mammina
NYLJ 7/13/12, p. 30, col. 1
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding challenging denial of an area variance, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting landowner's argument that the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) was obligated to explain the difference in result between this denial and other variance grants.
Landowner sought an area variance, and the ZBA denied the variance, concluding that a grant would result in a detrimental change in the character of the neighborhood, that the requested variance were substantial, and that any hardship was self-created. The board also relied on the effect an ordinance grant would have on the general effectiveness of the zoning ordinance. Landowner then brought this proceeding.
In affirming Supreme Court's denial of the petition, the Appellate Division first held that the ZBA's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, and then rejected landowner's argument that the ZBA had an obligation to explain why it had granted variances in other cases.
The Appellate Division acknowledged that an administrative agency, including a zoning board, has an obligation to give reasons for decisions that depart from past precedent, but the court held that in this case, the other applications were not sufficiently similar to this one to trigger a duty to explain.
ZBA Not Obligated to Explain Difference in Treatment
Matter of Davydov v. Mammina
NYLJ 7/13/12, p. 30, col. 1
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding challenging denial of an area variance, landowner appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting landowner's argument that the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) was obligated to explain the difference in result between this denial and other variance grants.
Landowner sought an area variance, and the ZBA denied the variance, concluding that a grant would result in a detrimental change in the character of the neighborhood, that the requested variance were substantial, and that any hardship was self-created. The board also relied on the effect an ordinance grant would have on the general effectiveness of the zoning ordinance. Landowner then brought this proceeding.
In affirming Supreme Court's denial of the petition, the Appellate Division first held that the ZBA's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, and then rejected landowner's argument that the ZBA had an obligation to explain why it had granted variances in other cases.
The Appellate Division acknowledged that an administrative agency, including a zoning board, has an obligation to give reasons for decisions that depart from past precedent, but the court held that in this case, the other applications were not sufficiently similar to this one to trigger a duty to explain.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.