People v Halpern (Howard)

[*1] People v Halpern (Howard) 2006 NYSlipOp 51196(U) Decided on June 22, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 22, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-1043 N CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Howard C. Halpern, Appellant.

Appeal from two judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Nassau County (Harold M. Hoffman, J.), rendered July 12, 2005. Each judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating section 230-72 of the Code of the Village of Great Neck Estates.

Judgments of conviction reversed on the law, accusatory instruments dismissed and fines, if paid, remitted.

The accusatory instruments in the case at bar charged defendant with violating section 230-72 of the Code of the Village of Great Neck Estates in that he failed to comply with the condition of a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals requiring that he complete the construction in accordance with a building permit by May 15, 2003. The Zoning Board of Appeals is vested with authority under certain conditions to permit construction and/or allow land use in variance with that permitted under the Code (see Village Law § 7-712-b; Code of the Village of Great Neck Estates §§ 230-67, 230-68). Here, defendant was not charged with construction and/or land use in violation of the variance, but in failing to complete construction within the time specified. Since neither section 230-72 of the Code, nor any other section of chapter 230, states that the failure to complete construction within the time specified by the Zoning Board of Appeals in its decision to allow a variance shall be deemed a violation, the judgments of conviction must be reversed and the accusatory instruments dismissed (see CPL 100.40 [1]).

Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 22, 2006