AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of TIMOTHY R. SEKUTERSKI et al., Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF LANCASTER et al., Appellants. (Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in directing respondent Village of Lancaster Zoning Board of Appeals to issue petitioners a variance with respect to their garage. The fact that petitioners built the garage based on an erroneously issued building permit does not estop respondents from enforcing the applicable zoning laws (see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, 282, rearg denied 71 N.Y.2d 995, cert denied 488 U.S. 801). The "rare exception" to the unavailability of estoppel cannot be applied where petitioners, with reasonable diligence, could have found the error (Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, supra, at 279). The photographs submitted to the court establish that there is a substantial detriment to the neighbors' property (see generally, Matter of Children's Hosp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 181 A.D.2d 1056, 1057-1058). It cannot be said that the denial of the variance was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fendelman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 178 A.D.2d 478). Thus, we reverse the judgment and dismiss the petition seeking a variance.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF SEKUTERSKI v. VILLAGE OF LANCASTER
(Dec 29, 1993)