Case Name: John Ciampa et al., Appellants, v. Donald Hudson et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Bloomfield, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1990-02-02
Citations: 158 A.D.2d 925
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Ciampa et al., Appellants, v Donald Hudson et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Bloomfield, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
John Ciampa et al., Appellants, v Donald Hudson et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Bloomfield, Respondents.

Opinion:
Petitioners' contention that the Board's denial of their application was inconsistent with its own precedent concerning similar applications lacks support in the record. The examples of the Board's past actions submitted by petitioners fail to show "sufficient factual similarity so as to warrant an explanation from the Board" (Knight v Amelkin, 68 NY2d 975, 978). The record also fails to support petitioners' allegations of impropriety in the Board's procedures and decision-making process. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.