TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 1, 1921
Citations
130 N.E. 910230 N.Y. 6021921 N.Y. LEXIS 881
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 →
1923: 11925: 21927: 11928: 11929: 11931: 11932: 11933: 11938: 11942: 11957: 119232026peak 1925 · 2

Most recent

  1. Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals11 Misc. 2d 84 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1957)
  2. Thomas v. Board of Standards & Appeals263 A.D. 352 (1942)
  3. Robinson v. T.C. of Narragansett199 A. 308 (R.I. 1938)
  4. Sugar v. North Baltimore Methodist Protestant Church165 A. 703 (Md. 1933)
  5. L. & M. Investment Co. v. Cutler180 N.E. 379 (Ohio 1932)
  6. Eaton v. Sweeny232 A.D. 459 (1931)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list