Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner did not put forth sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances or new facts that were not available at the time of her 1984 application for a zoning variance. Therefore, her 1999 application for a new hearing on the proposed variance for the subject property was properly denied (see, Pettit v Board of Appeals,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.