Case Name: In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v. Elizabeth Squillace et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown et al., Respondents. Association for Sensible Zoning of Valley Cottage, Intervenor-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1986-01-27
Citations: 116 A.D.2d 719
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v Elizabeth Squillace et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown et al., Respondents. Association for Sensible Zoning of Valley Cottage, Intervenor-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v Elizabeth Squillace et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Isidore Karten et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown et al., Respondents. Association for Sensible Zoning of Valley Cottage, Intervenor-Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Opinion:
In consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clarkstown which, after a hearing, denied petitioners' application for a zoning variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Slifkin, J.), entered April 30, 1984, which dismissed the petitions.
Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents and intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Board's determination that the application was for a use variance and was not to continue a preexisting nonconforming use was supported by substantial evidence, as was its conclusion that petitioners failed to demonstrate unnecessary hardship.
Petitioners' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.