You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Tanglewood Shopping Center Co. v. Cianciull

Citations: 224 A.D.2d 432; 637 N.Y.S.2d 756; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 4, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

A proceeding was initiated under CPLR article 78 to challenge a March 30, 1993 determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of Yonkers, which approved an application for three variances on commercial property adjacent to the petitioner's property. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled against the petitioner on July 1, 1994, leading to the current appeal. The court affirmed the Zoning Board's decision, stating that it was not arbitrary or capricious. The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the unique size constraints of the property, the presence of a brook, an economic feasibility study, and a traffic study presented by the intervenor-respondent. The petitioner's additional arguments were deemed without merit, and costs were awarded to the respondents who filed separate briefs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Costs Awarded in Appellate Proceedings

Application: Costs were awarded to the respondents who submitted separate briefs, indicating a prevailing party can be awarded costs in such cases.

Reasoning: The petitioner's additional arguments were deemed without merit, and costs were awarded to the respondents who filed separate briefs.

Review of Zoning Board Determinations

Application: The court reviews decisions of the Zoning Board to determine if they are arbitrary or capricious, ultimately affirming the Board's decision as it was supported by substantial evidence.

Reasoning: The court affirmed the Zoning Board's decision, stating that it was not arbitrary or capricious.

Substantial Evidence Requirement

Application: The decision of the Zoning Board was upheld due to substantial evidence provided, including unique property constraints and studies on economic feasibility and traffic.

Reasoning: The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the unique size constraints of the property, the presence of a brook, an economic feasibility study, and a traffic study presented by the intervenor-respondent.