Karras v. Michaelis, 19 N.Y.2d 449 (1967)

r
r

A zoning board is not compelled to grant a variance based on practical difficulties when those difficulties arose from a voluntary settlement in a condemnation proceeding that presumably compensated the landowner for the resulting zoning non-conformity.

r
r

Summary

r

Karras, a contract vendee, sought a zoning variance to build a home on a triangular piece of land that did not meet the town’s zoning requirements. The land became non-conforming after the State condemned a portion of the original property. The prior owner, Mollica, settled with the state for $17,000 and the state “deeded back” the non-conforming land. The zoning board denied the variance, and the court initially dismissed Karras’s petition for review. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that the zoning board was not compelled to grant a variance because Mollica’s voluntary settlement with the State should have accounted for the consequential damages resulting from the non-conforming parcel.

r
r

Facts

r

Mollica, the contract vendor, owned property acquired in 1953 for $12,990. The State condemned a portion of the property, leaving a triangular piece that violated the town’s zoning requirements. The State and Mollica settled the condemnation claim for $17,000, and the State returned the non-conforming triangular parcel. Karras, as contract vendee, sought a variance to build on the non-conforming land.

r
r

Procedural History

r

Karras petitioned the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead for a variance, which was denied. Karras then filed an Article 78 proceeding for judicial review. The Special Term initially dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, dismissing the petition and upholding the Zoning Board’s decision.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

Whether the Board of Zoning Appeals was compelled to grant a variance based on