People v. Bell Atl.

DAVID OTIS FULLER, JR., J. The question raised by this motion is whether the stay provided by section 7-712-a (6) of the Village Law should apply. when the issue before the court and the issue before the Zoning Board of Appeals are the same. That the appeal did not originate in the denial of an application or notice of violation is immaterial. In fact, accepting the Village's position would leave it to the discretion of the Building Inspector whether or not there was a stay. When the Building Inspector attempted to enforce a zoning law in court rather then begin by issuing a notice of violation or denial of an application, an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in the Village's view, would not result in a stay. This is to exalt the form, which could be chosen by the Village, over substance. The purpose of the stay is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Zoning Board of Appeals before moving to a judicial determination. If, for instance, without a stay, a jury were to find Bell Atlantic guilty of the alleged violations, the Zoning Board of Appeals could later find Bell Atlantic in compliance; thus, in effect, reversing the jury's decision. The Village should first await the exhaustion of administrative interpretations and then proceed with its case in this court if the Zoning Board of Appeals sustains the Village's position. Accordingly, Bell Atlantic's motion for a stay of the trial pursuant to section 7-712-a (6) of the Village Law is granted.