applicant error in New York

2010Moreover, a building permit issued due to a misrepresentation by the applicant or an error by the municipal agency cannot confer rights in contravention of the zoning laws, and is subject to corrective action, even where the results may be harsh (see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York, 71 NY2d at 282 ; Town of Putnam Val. v Sacramone, 16 AD3d 669, 670 [2005]; McGannon v Board of Trustees for Vil. of Pomona, 239 AD2d 392, 393 [1997]; Baris Shoe Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, 234 AD2d 245 [1996]; Welland Estates v Smith, 109 AD2d 193, 196 [1985], affd 67 NY2d 789 [1986]).

2010Moreover, a building permit issued due to a misrepresentation by the applicant or an error by the municipal agency cannot confer rights in contravention of the zoning laws, and is subject to corrective action, even where the results may be harsh (see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York, 71 NY2d at 282 ; Town of Putnam Val. v Sacramone, 16 AD3d 669, 670 [2005]; McGannon v Board of Trustees for Vil. of Pomona, 239 AD2d 392, 393 [1997]; Baris Shoe Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, 234 AD2d 245 [1996]; Welland Estates v Smith, 109 AD2d 193, 196 [1985], affd 67 NY2d 789 [1986]).

2010Moreover, a building permit issued due to a misrepresentation by the applicant or an error by the municipal agency cannot confer rights in contravention of the zoning laws, and is subject to corrective action, even where the results may be harsh (see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York, 71 NY2d at 282 ; Town of Putnam Val. v Sacramone, 16 AD3d 669, 670 [2005]; McGannon v Board of Trustees for Vil. of Pomona, 239 AD2d 392, 393 [1997]; Baris Shoe Co. v Town of Oyster Bay, 234 AD2d 245 [1996]; Welland Estates v Smith, 109 AD2d 193, 196 [1985], affd 67 NY2d 789 [1986]).

2004(Public Health Law § 1399-t [1].) Public Health Law § 1399-u (1) (a) and (b) provide that the "enforcement officer may grant a waiver from the application of a specific provision of this article, provided that prior to the granting of any such waiver the applicant for a waiver shall establish that . . . compliance with a specific provision of this article {** 3 Misc 3d at 861 }would cause undue financial hardship[,] or . . . other factors exist which would render compliance unreasonable." Moreover, even where a waiver is granted, such waiver "shall be subject to such conditions or restrictions

2002Such conditions “must be expressed with sufficient clarity to inform an applicant of the limitations on the use of his land and cannot incorporate by reference statements of the applicant at the hearing” (Suburban Club of Larkfield v Town of Huntington, 57 Misc 2d 1051, 1056 , affd 31 AD2d 718 , lv denied 24 NY2d 739 ; see Matter of Rochester Historical Socy. v Crowley, 14 AD2d 490 ; South Woodbury Taxpayers Assn. v American Inst. of Physics, 104 Misc 2d 254, 259 ).

2002Such conditions “must be expressed with sufficient clarity to inform an applicant of the limitations on the use of his land and cannot incorporate by reference statements of the applicant at the hearing” (Suburban Club of Larkfield v Town of Huntington, 57 Misc 2d 1051, 1056 , affd 31 AD2d 718 , lv denied 24 NY2d 739 ; see Matter of Rochester Historical Socy. v Crowley, 14 AD2d 490 ; South Woodbury Taxpayers Assn. v American Inst. of Physics, 104 Misc 2d 254, 259 ).

1983In making this determination, it appears that the Board may properly give consideration to State public policies expressed in other statutes ( Matter of Cantor, supra ).

1980Corp. v Lombardi, 28 AD2d 1001 ).

1978But where the applicant shows that a transfer was for value or for repayment of an antecedent debt, the presumption of fraud is overcome (Matter of Gardner v Lavine, supra; Sweeney v D’Elia, 49 AD2d 593 ).

1978But where the applicant shows that a transfer was for value or for repayment of an antecedent debt, the presumption of fraud is overcome (Matter of Gardner v Lavine, supra; Sweeney v D’Elia, 49 AD2d 593 ).

1968Conditions imposed by a zoning board must be expressed with sufficient clarity to inform an applicant of the limitations on the use of his land and cannot incorporate by reference statements of the applicant at the hearing (Anderson, Zoning Law and Practice in New York State, § 18:46; Matter of Rochester Historical Soc. v. Crowley, 14 A D 2d 490; Matter of Conmar Bldrs. v. Board of Appeals, 43 Misc 2d 577 ).

1957Only recently the Supreme Court of the United States said: "A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar", so long as such qualification has a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or competency to practice law ( Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners , 353 U. S. 232, 239 ).

1957Only recently the Supreme Court of the United States said: “ A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar ”, so long as such qualification has a rational connection with the applicant’s fitness or competency to practice law (Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 239 ).

1957The requirements that the Legislature has established as a prerequisite for admission to the Bar were enacted for the protection of the public ( People v. Alfani , 227 N.Y. 334, 339 , supra ). *233 As heretofore pointed out, the public is as liable to injury when an unlicensed person gives advice to an individual as to his legal rights under foreign law as it is with respect to his rights under domestic law.

1953(Cf. Matter of Elite Dairy Products v. Ten Eyck, 271 N. Y. 488, 497 .) The commissioner’s announcement further stated that, if a hearing was held, an effort would be made to inform those who might be interested but that the applicant and the Director of Milk Control would be the only parties to the hearing and that they would be the only ones who would be allowed to introduce evidence.

1929While the statute says that the salary may be fixed by the board of trustees within thirty days after the adoption of this chapter, this is merely directory and not mandatory.” The question whether a statute be in character mandatory or directory may find solution in the intention of the Legislature, and that is to be sought in the investigation of considerations of “ inconvenience or injustice to innocent persons, or advantage to those guilty of the neglect, without promoting the real aim and object of the enactment.” (People v. Karr, 240 N. Y. 348 .) It is plain that the general purpose of s