New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Village Law § 7-736 (2026)

Construction of municipal utility in streets; permits for erection of buildings; appeal; review by court

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 7-736 Construction of municipal utility in streets; permits for
erection of buildings; appeal; review by court. 1. No public municipal
street utility or improvement shall be constructed by the village in any
street or highway until it has become a public street or highway and is
duly placed on the official map or plan; except that the board of
trustees may authorize the construction of a public municipal street
utility or improvement in or under a street which has not been
dedicated, but which has been used by the public as a street for five
years or more, prior to March second, nineteen hundred thirty-eight, and
is shown as a street on a plat of a subdivision of land which had been
filed prior to March second, nineteen hundred thirty-eight, in the
office of the county clerk or register of the county in which such
village is located.
  2. No permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless a
street or highway giving access to such proposed structure has been duly
placed on the official map or plan, or if there be no official map or
plan, unless such street or highway is (a) an existing state, county,
town or village highway, or (b) a street shown upon a plat approved by
the planning board as provided under the provisions of this article, as
in effect at the time such plat was approved, or (c) a street on a plat
duly filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk or register
prior to the appointment of such planning board and the grant to such
board of the power to approve plats. Before such permit shall be issued
such street or highway shall have been suitably improved to the
satisfaction of the planning board in accordance with standards and
specifications approved by the appropriate village officers as adequate
in respect to the public health, safety and general welfare for the
special circumstances of the particular street or highway, or
alternatively, and in the discretion of such board, a performance bond
sufficient to cover the full cost of such improvement as estimated by
such board or other appropriate village departments designated by such
board shall be furnished to the village by the owner.  Such performance
bond shall be issued by a bonding or surety company approved by the
board of trustees or by the owner with security acceptable to the board
of trustees, and shall also be approved by the village attorney as to
form, sufficiency and manner of execution.  The term, manner of
modification and method of enforcement of such bond shall be determined
by the appropriate board in substantial conformity with section 7-730 of
this article.
  3. The applicant for such a permit may appeal from the decision of the
administrative officer having charge of the issue of permits to the
board of appeals or other similar board, in any village which has
established a board having the power to make variances or exceptions in
zoning regulations for:  (a) an exception if the circumstances of the
case do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed
streets or highways, and/or (b) an area variance pursuant to section
7-712-b of this chapter, and the same provisions are hereby applied to
such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeals on
zoning regulations.  The board may in passing on such appeal make any
reasonable exception and issue the permit subject to conditions that
will protect any future street or highway layout. Any such decision
shall be subject to review in the same manner and pursuant to the same
provisions as in appeals from the decisions of such board upon zoning
regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Ellington Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Inc., 152 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1989).
Ellington Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Inc., 152 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1989). “Finally, General Municipal Law § 239-k provides that no building permit shall be issued or approved by a municipality where a proposed building shall have frontage on, access to, or be otherwise directly related to any existing or proposed right-of-way located on the county map,…”
Hejna v. Bd. of Appeals, 105 A.D.3d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “The ZBA properly declined to consider the petitioners’ arguments concerning JAMM’s right to use a particular private right-of-way.”
Joseph v. Romano, 208 A.D.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994). “In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Goshen, dated February 13, 1992, denying the petitioners’ application for a variance from the grading and set-back requirements of the Village Zoning…”
Nager v. Inc. Vill. of Saddle Rock, 140 Misc. 2d 644 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988). “Given the plaintiffs’ location, if they are successful in preventing the construction of Bayport Lane North, they will become de facto bayfront lot owners, as Cohen and Tumminello will be unable to build in the absence of road frontage (Village Law § 7-736 [2]; Town Law § 280-a).”
Sorg v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 248 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1998). · cites it 2× “Village Law § 7-736 authorizes a village to require a property owner to improve the street or means of access off-site as *623 a prerequisite to issuance of a building permit (see, Pearson Kent Corp.”
Matter of Soldatenko v. Vill. of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 138 A.D.3d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016). · cites it 6× “In its resolution, the Village Board relied on, among other provisions, Village Law § 7-736, which provides in relevant part that “[n]o permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless a street or highway giving access to such proposed structure has been duly…”
Pinnetti v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mount Kisco, 101 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although 12 houses existed on Oakridge Road at the time when the petitioners requested the permit, the Building Inspector of the Village (hereinafter the Building Inspector) denied the application on the ground that Oakridge Road did not qualify as an “official” road within the…”
Pinnetti v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mount Kisco, 101 A.D.3d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 3× “Although 12 houses existed on Oakridge Road at the time when the petitioners requested the permit, the Building Inspector of the Village (hereinafter the Building Inspector) denied the application on the ground that Oakridge Road did not qualify as an “official” road within the…”
Filipowski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenwood Lake, 101 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, for the purpose of determining compliance with the access requirements of Village Law § 7-736 (2), it was appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Greenwood Lake (hereinafter the ZBA) and the Supreme Court to consider…”
Filipowski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenwood Lake, 101 A.D.3d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, for the purpose of determining compliance with the access requirements of Village Law § 7-736 (2), it was appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Greenwood Lake (hereinafter the ZBA) and the Supreme Court to consider…”
Hejna v. Bd. of Appeals, 105 A.D.3d 843 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “The ZBA properly declined to consider the petitioners’ arguments concerning JAMM’s right to use a particular private right-of-way.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.