In the Matter of Harry Cashy

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3642f
E/hu
�AD2d Argued - March 6, 2003
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

2002-02740
In the Matter of Harry Cashy,.....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 3642f E/hu AD2d Argued – March 6, 2003 MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P. GLORIA GOLDSTEIN DANIEL F. LUCIANO HOWARD MILLER, JJ. 2002-02740 In the Matter of Harry Cashy, et al., respondents, v Gerard P. Goehringer, etc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 17016/01) Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Frank A. Isler of counsel), for appellants. Charles R. Cuddy, Riverhead, N.Y., for respondents. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold dated June 7, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners’ application for an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated March 5, 2002, which granted the petition and directed the issuance of a building permit subject to any reasonable conditions deemed necessary. ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits. Southold Town Code ‘ 100-239.4(A)(1) prohibits “structures,” such as pools (see Southold Town Code ‘ 100-13), from being constructed within 100 feet of the top of a bluff adjacent to Long Island Sound. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, this zoning ordinance, which was amended to apply to “structures” after the Supreme Court issued its judgment, must be applied to the instant matter (see Matter of Pressman v Gunther, 243 AD2d 634). Weighing the factors set forth in Town Law ‘ 267-b(3), the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold determined that the petitioners were not entitled to an area variance. Their determination on that issue was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in annulling that determination and in directing that the variance be granted. ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur. ENTER: James Edward Pelzer Clerk

In the Matter of Harry Cashy

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 3642f E/hu �AD2d Argued - March 6, 2003 MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P. GLORIA GOLDSTEIN DANIEL F. LUCIANO HOWARD MILLER, JJ. 2002-02740 In the Matter of Harry Cashy,.....

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
3642f
E/hu
�AD2d Argued - March 6, 2003
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

2002-02740
In the Matter of Harry Cashy,.....