People ex rel. Facey v. Leo
The People of the State of New York Ex Rel. Albert E. Facey v. . John P. Leo, Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City of New York, Martha R. French, Intervener
People ex rel. Facey v. Leo, 130 N.E. 910 (N.Y. 1921)
Headnotes
New York city — certiorari to review act of board of appeals reversing determination of superintendent of buildings, which denied application for permission to erect garage — Zoning Law.
Summary
• Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 27, 1920, which affirmed an order of Special Term dismissing a writ of certiorari. The respondent French, who owned premises on President street in the borough of Brooklyn, made application to the superintendent of buildings for the extension of an existing stable and its conversion into a brick garage, which application was denied. Her application was based upon a plan to demolish the existing structures and to erect a building to cover the entire premises. She appealed to the board of appeals pursuant to section 718-d of the charter of the city of New York, as amended by chapter 601, Laws of 1917, and that body unanimously reversed the building superintendent and granted her application. Appellant, as the owner of property affected by the proposed structure, obtained a writ of certiorari to review the act of the board. The- action of the board of appeals was upheld in the courts below by virtue of this provision in section 20 of the zoning resolution: “ * * * Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this resolution, the Board of Appeals shall have the power in a specific case to vary any such provision in harmony with its general purpose and intent, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done * *
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with costs: no opinion.
Concur: Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Not voting: Hiscock, Ch. J.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.