Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?