continuance violation in New York

2015To establish standing to maintain a private common-law action to enjoin zoning violations, a private plaintiff must establish that, due to the defendant’s activities, he or she will sustain special damages that are “different in kind and degree from the community generally” and that the asserted interests fall “within the zone of interest to be protected” by the statute or ordinance at issue (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d 406, 413, 414 [1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012The obligation of village officials to enforce zoning ordinances “ ‘does not prevent a private property owner who suffers special damages from maintaining an action’ ” seeking “to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages” to vindicate “a discrete, separate identifiable interest of his [or her] own” (Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738 , 741-742 [1977], quoting Marcus v Village of Mamaroneck, 283 NY 325, 333 [1940]; see Manuli v Hildenbrandt, 144 AD2d 789, 790 [1988]).

2012The obligation of village officials to enforce zoning ordinances “ ‘does not prevent a private property owner who suffers special damages from maintaining an action’ ” seeking “to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages” to vindicate “a discrete, separate identifiable interest of his [or her] own” (Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738 , 741-742 [1977], quoting Marcus v Village of Mamaroneck, 283 NY 325, 333 [1940]; see Manuli v Hildenbrandt, 144 AD2d 789, 790 [1988]).

2022Although [*6]this is a motion for reciprocal discipline, because "the policy of this Court is not to stay suspensions," we depart from the sanction imposed by New Hampshire upon respondent ( Matter of Hagendorf , 17 AD3d 25, 27 [1st Dept 2005]).

2022Although [*6]this is a motion for reciprocal discipline, because "the policy of this Court is not to stay suspensions," we depart from the sanction imposed by New Hampshire upon respondent ( Matter of Hagendorf , 17 AD3d 25, 27 [1st Dept 2005]).

2012The obligation of village officials to enforce zoning ordinances “ ‘does not prevent a private property owner who suffers special damages from maintaining an action’ ” seeking “to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages” to vindicate “a discrete, separate identifiable interest of his [or her] own” (Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738 , 741-742 [1977], quoting Marcus v Village of Mamaroneck, 283 NY 325, 333 [1940]; see Manuli v Hildenbrandt, 144 AD2d 789, 790 [1988]).

2012The obligation of village officials to enforce zoning ordinances “ ‘does not prevent a private property owner who suffers special damages from maintaining an action’ ” seeking “to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages” to vindicate “a discrete, separate identifiable interest of his [or her] own” (Little Joseph Realty v Town of Babylon, 41 NY2d 738 , 741-742 [1977], quoting Marcus v Village of Mamaroneck, 283 NY 325, 333 [1940]; see Manuli v Hildenbrandt, 144 AD2d 789, 790 [1988]).

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2012Case law has been unclear, however, as to whether “special damages” are an aspect of standing — which may presumptively be satisfied by proof of close proximity and assertion of an interest within the “zone of interest” of the regulation — or are, separate and apart from standing, an element of the cause of action alleging a violation of zoning laws (compare Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 NY2d at 409-410, 413-414 , Zupa v Paradise Point Assn., Inc., 22 AD3d 843, 843-844 [2005], with Marlowe v Elmwood, Inc., 12 AD3d 742, 744-745 [2004], lv d

2019Inasmuch as plaintiff specifically claims that defendant has exceeded the scope of the use variance for his property, it is important to note that "the expansion of a conforming use authorized by a variance" may not be prohibited, yet, the use must abide by the terms of the variance ( Matter of Borer v Vineberg , 213 AD2d 828, 830 [1995]; see Matter of Scarsdale Shopping Ctr.

2019"Although municipal officials indeed are tasked with enforcing zoning ordinances within their boundaries, this does not prevent private property owners who suffer special damages from maintaining an action seeking to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages to vindicate their discrete, separate identifiable interests" ( Town of N. Elba v Grimditch , 131 AD3d 150, 155 [2015] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, brackets and citations omitted], lvs denied 26 NY3d 903 [2015]).

2015Although municipal officials indeed are tasked with enforcing zoning ordinances within their boundaries (see Town Law § 268 [2]), this “does not prevent . . . private property owner [s] who suffer [ ] special damages from maintaining an action seeking to enjoin the continuance of the violation and obtain damages to vindicate [their] discrete, separate identifiable interest[s]” (Nemeth v K-Tooling, 100 AD3d 1271, 1273 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2015In any event, under the aforementioned circumstances, the parents and the maternal grandmother were given sufficient notice to amend their answer and an opportunity to secure a continuance of the hearing (see Matter of Shawniece E., 110 AD2d at 901 ; cf. Matter of Vallery P. [Jondalla P], 106 AD3d at 575).

2009Finally, we reject the contention of respondent that the court lacked the authority to remand him to detention after completion of the fact-finding hearing, pending a continuance of the violation proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 360.3 [6]), and we conclude, based upon the severity of the offense committed by respondent as well as his willful violation of his existing conditions of probation, that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a new two-year period of probation (see Matter of Richard W., 13 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2004]).

2008Petitioner failed to seek a judicial subpoena in order to obtain that driver’s license or otherwise request its production prior to the hearing {see generally Matter of Steven B., 6 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]).

2002Respondent never consented to the continuance of the hearing for the purpose of calling the additional witness ( compare Matter of Willie E., 88 NY2d 205, 209-210 [1996] [defense counsel requested additional time for motion practice]).

2002Respondent never consented to the continuance of the hearing for the purpose of calling the additional witness (compare Matter of Willie E., 88 NY2d 205, 209-210 [1996] [defense counsel requested additional time for motion practice]).