Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals
Annotate this Case[*1] In the Matter of George Pantelidis, Respondent,
v
New York City Board of Standards and Appeals et al., Appellants, and Joseph E. Sheehan et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
Decided May 1, 2008
Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 43 AD3d 314, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants.
Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP, New York City (Bruce H. Weiner of counsel), for intervenors-appellants.
Hagan, Coury & Associates, Brooklyn (Paul Golden of counsel), for respondent.
{**10 NY3d at 847} OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.
An issue of fact existed whether petitioner relied in good faith upon the permit issued by the Department of Buildings. The courts below properly concluded that a hearing was necessary on that issue and that, in this setting, that hearing could be conducted by Supreme Court and not [*2]the agency. Moreover, because the record was sufficiently developed, Supreme Court, after conducting the good faith hearing, properly concluded as a matter of law that petitioner had satisfied the criteria set forth in the Zoning Resolution and that the Board of Standards and Appeals should issue the requested variance.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
