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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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.