Sanchez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Sanchez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosewood Home Builders, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Here, respondent clearly considered the financial detriment to petitioner if the variances were denied, even though it “had no obligation to weigh the expense of compliance in the petitioner’s favor” (Matter of Carlucci v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Philipstown, 205 AD2d 688, 688 [1994]) given the self-created nature of the need for the variances (see Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, 194 AD2d 613, 614 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlucci v. Board of Zoning Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · confidence medium
After finding that the hardship was self-created, the Board of Zoning Appeals had no obligation to weigh the expense of compliance in the petitioner’s favor (see, Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, supra, at 614; Matter of Nammack v Krucklin, supra, at 596 ; Matter of CDK Rest. v Krucklin, 118 AD2d 851 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shaughessy v. Roth
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
While a local zoning board has broad discretion in considering applications for variances, its determination will be sustained only if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 314 ; see also, Matter of Slakoff v Hitchcock, 194 AD2d 613 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Rogelio Sanchez
v.
New York City Housing Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 7, 1993.
194 A.D.2d 613
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 3, 1991, as denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant New York City Housing Authority had no duty to protect the plaintiff tenant from a mugging on a public street which occurred within the confines of a housing project (see, Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506; Blatt v New York City Hous. Auth., 123 AD2d 591). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.