Knight v. Amelkin, 503 N.E.2d 106 (N.Y. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Knight v. Amelkin, 503 N.E.2d 106 (N.Y. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A zoning board of appeals acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it departs from prior precedent on essentially the same facts without providing an explanation.

Petitioners sought a zoning variance or special exception from off-street parking requirements. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application without explaining why it departed from prior decisions granting similar relief on essentially the same facts. The court applies the rule that an administrative agency decision is arbitrary and capricious if it neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates reasons for reaching a different result on similar facts. Because the board performs a quasi-judicial function, it must comply with this requirement. The court holds that the board must either explain the departure from its prior determinations or issue a conforming decision. The court does not prohibit the board from ultimately denying the application, but requires it to provide the necessary explanation or conform to its prior rulings.

76 citation events (54 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Heinchon Dairy, Inc. v. Vill. of Pawling Plan. Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 04195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
68 N.Y.2d at 977 Determining arbitrariness in administrative agency decisions29 citing casesrequiring a showing of existence of several earlier determinations by Zoning Board with sufficient factual similarity to warrant an explanation from Board1 citing court put it this way · 23 listed here
  • Matter of Heinchon Dairy, Inc. v. Vill. of Pawling Plan. Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 04195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published 5 cites
    Further, these conclusory findings deviated from the Planning Board's findings in the negative declaration that it made only eight months earlier, and the Planning Board failed to offer any reasoning or evidence for these deviations ( see…
  • Vanderveer v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals Town of East Hampton, No. 2:19-cv-03833, 2020 WL 7042669 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2020).
    “adhere to its own precedent [or] indicate [its] reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts”
  • Matter of Liu v. State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2019).published
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington , 97 NY2d 86, 93 [2001]; Knight v Amelkin , 68 NY2d 975, 977-978 [1986]; Matter of Kopyt v Governor's Off. of Empl.
  • Benali, LLC v. New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation, 150 A.D.3d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86, 93 [2001]; Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]; Matter of Aliperti v Trotta, 35 AD3d 854 [2006]).
  • Matter of Monte Carlo 1, LLC v. Weiss, 142 A.D.3d 1173 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 , 93 [2001], quoting Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of c/o Hamptons, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of E.
  • Matter of Fortunato v. Town of Hempstead Bd. of Appeals, 134 A.D.3d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).published
    As to the remaining allegedly similar applications, the petitioners failed to show that they constituted precedent from which the Board was required to explain a departure (see Matter of Davydov v Mammina, 97 AD3d 678, 679-680 [2012]; Matt…
  • Mimassi v. Town of Whitestown Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 124 A.D.3d 1329 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86, 93 [2001]; Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]).
  • Chynn v. DeChance, 110 A.D.3d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Further, although “[a] determination of a zoning board of appeals that ‘ “neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” ’ ” (M…
  • Powers v. St. John's Univ. Sch. of Law, 110 A.D.3d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    John’s Law School effectively ignored the supplemental information that Powers provided and punished him based on the finding that he did not fully and truthfully provide the requested disclosure, its determination was arbitrary and capric…
  • Hamptons, LLC v. Rickenbach, 98 A.D.3d 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    Thus, a denial of the petitioners’ application, under the law as it existed when the application was made, would have been arbitrary and capricious (see Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]).
Show 13 more citing cases
  • Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of East Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 4 cites
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 , 93 [2001], quoting Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]; see also Matter of Campo Grandchildren Trust v Colson, 39 AD3d 746 [2007]), and mandates reversal, even if ther…
  • Wilson v. Iwanowicz, 97 A.D.3d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 2 cites
    Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the determination was inconsistent with a prior DEC decision to issue a variance on essentially the same facts, and, in any event, the DEC articulated a reason for reaching a different re…
  • Bout v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 71 A.D.3d 1014 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    Nonetheless, a determination of a zoning board of appeals that “ ‘neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious’ ” (Knight v Am…
  • Caspian Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 68 A.D.3d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, we also find that the ZBA adequately distinguished other cases in the Town of Greenburgh where area variances had been granted (see generally Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977-978 [1986]…
  • Menachem Realty Inc. v. Srinivasan, 60 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).published
    However, the determination of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious (see Knight v Amelki…
  • Lucas v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Mamaroneck, 57 A.D.3d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 , 93 [2001], quoting Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]; see also Matter of Campo Grandchildren Trust v Colson, 39 AD3d 746 [2007]), and mandates reversal, even if ther…
  • Bassano v. Town of Carmel Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 56 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    The decision of “an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” (Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975,…
  • McCrory v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 A.D.3d 649 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    To the extent that the respondents’ determinations interpreting Village of Mamaroneck Code § 342-12 (B) and § 342-3 are ripe for judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78, we find that their interpretation was not unreasonable or irratio…
  • Campo Grandchildren Trust v. Colson, 39 A.D.3d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
    A determination of a zoning board of appeals that “ ‘neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious’ ” (Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2…
  • Nozzleman 60, LLC v. Vill. of Cold Spring Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 34 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86, 93 [2001]; Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]).
  • Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 761 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 2001).published
    Moreover, “ ‘[a] decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious’ ” (Knight v Amelkin…
  • Tall Trees v. Zoning Bd., 761 N.E.2d 565 (N.Y. 2001).published
    Moreover, "`[a] decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious'" ( Knight v Amelkin,…
  • Ass'n of Secretaries to Justices of the Supreme & Surrogate's Courts v. Off. of Court Admin., 553 N.E.2d 979 (N.Y. 1990).published
    (requiring a showing of existence of several earlier determinations by Zoning Board with sufficient factual similarity to warrant an explanation from Board)
68 N.Y.2d at 978 Requiring explanation for contrary zoning board determinations7 citing casesearlier determinations by the Zoning Board with sufficient factual similarity so as to warrant an explanation from the Board. In particular, the Board should…opening of page *978 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 6 listed here
  • Matter of Heinchon Dairy, Inc. v. Vill. of Pawling Plan. Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 04195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published 5 cites
    Further, these conclusory findings deviated from the Planning Board's findings in the negative declaration that it made only eight months earlier, and the Planning Board failed to offer any reasoning or evidence for these deviations ( see…
  • Matter of London Leasing Ltd. P'ship v. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 153 A.D.3d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Rather, the Supreme Court, in its judgment entered December 18, 2013, annulled so much of the DHCR’s determination as found that the “administrative costs” were not MCI eligible and remitted the matter on the ground that the DHCR had faile…
  • Hamptons, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of East Hampton, 98 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published 4 cites
    Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 , 93 [2001], quoting Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 977 [1986]; see also Matter of Campo Grandchildren Trust v Colson, 39 AD3d 746 [2007]), and mandates reversal, even if ther…
  • Aparicio v. Env't Control Bd., 83 A.D.3d 1054 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published
    Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed (see Matter of R.I., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 72 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2010]; Matter of Brooklyn Resource Recovery, Inc. v City o…
  • B.Z.V. Enter. Corp. v. Srinivasan, 35 A.D.3d 732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).published
    Further, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the instant variance application lacked “sufficient factual similarity” to variance application number 369-01-BZ (cf. Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 978 [1986]).
  • Mobil Oil Corp. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck Bd. of Appeals, 293 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002).published
    Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to remit this matter to the Board of Appeals for further proceedings with respect to the canopy and canopy sign in accordance herewith (see Knight v Amelkin, supra at 978; cf. Matter of Field Delivery…
503 N.E.2d at 106 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Billeris v. Inc. Vill. of Bayville, No. 2:20-cv-03298 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023).
    “The New York Court of Appeals has expressly stated that ‘a zoning board of appeals performs a quasi-judicial function when considering applications for variances and special exceptions.’” Dean, 527 F. Supp. 3d at 411 (quoting Knight v. Am…
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert T. Knight
v.
Stanley P. Amelkin, Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 20, 1986.
Published opinion
503 N.E.2d 106
1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20935
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Gordon C. Sammis and Thomas R. Newman for appellants., Michael F. Mullen for respondents.
Cited by 55 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington for further consideration.

We have recently held that "[a] decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 517). Inasmuch as a zoning board of appeals performs a quasi-judicial function when considering applications for variances and special exceptions (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591, 598-599, rearg denied 42 NY2d 910; Holy Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190, lv denied 63 NY2d 603), and completely lacks legislative power (2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 23.59, at 251; 6 Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.01 [2] [b], at 43-8 — 43-9), a zoning board of appeals must comply with the rule of the Field case. Here, petitioners have succeeded in showing the existence of several[*978] earlier determinations by the Zoning Board with sufficient factual similarity so as to warrant an explanation from the Board. In particular, the Board should explain why it no longer interprets section 198-44 (C) of the zoning ordinance to be applicable in a case involving intensified use of property, as it apparently did in its July 1982 and November 1981 decisions cited by petitioners. It should also explain why its 1978 determination granting a variance to another owner of a downtown furniture store is different from the application of petitioners. Of course, the Board is not prohibited by our decision today from denying petitioners’ application for a variance from or special exception to the zoning ordinance’s off-street parking requirements. We only hold that because petitioners have shown earlier determinations of the Board reaching contrary results on essentially the same facts, an explanation or, in the alternative, a conforming determination, is required.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, with directions to remand to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington for further consideration in accordance with the memorandum herein.