Toys “R” Us v. Silva

89 N.Y.2d 411, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862 (1996)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Toys “R” Us v. Silva

New York Court of Appeals
89 N.Y.2d 411, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862 (1996)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

In 1956, Morgan Manhattan Storage and Warehouse Company (Morgan) purchased a 16-story building in Manhattan that was used as a storage and warehouse facility. Morgan used the building exclusively as a warehouse. The building was located in a retail zoning district until the 1961 New York City Zoning Resolution changed the zoning to residential. A warehouse was not permitted as of right in a residentially zoned area, but the building owned by Morgan could still be used as a warehouse as a nonconforming use. Morgan continued using the building as a warehouse until August 1989, when it contracted to sell the building and ceased all warehouse operations. The sale fell through, and 20 months passed since Morgan had emptied the building. In July 1991, Morgan transferred a limited amount of goods back into the building in an effort to resume nonconforming warehouse use. In 1992, Chase Manhattan Bank acquired the building and was assured by the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) that nonconforming use at the premises had been reestablished in 1991 and could lawfully continue. In 1994, Toys “R” Us (defendant) purchased the basement and first two floors of the building. Toys “R” Us filed an application with the DOB to convert the purchased premises into a retail toy store, which was a nonconforming use in the residential zoning district. The DOB approved the application and issued a building permit authorizing the conversion. A coalition of neighborhood and block associations called Neighbors-R-Us (Neighbors) (plaintiff) objected to the building permit and sought to have it revoked, but DOB denied the request. Neighbors then challenged the issuance of the permit through an administrative appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), arguing that the nonconforming warehouse use was discontinued during the period between October 1989 and July 1991 when Morgan ceased its operations. The BSA determined that the insignificant level of warehouse activity during the 20-month period failed to perpetuate the nonconforming warehouse use and revoked the building permit. Toys “R” Us commenced a proceeding in trial court seeking to reinstate its permit. The trial court found that the storage of some goods in the warehouse sufficiently continued the nonconforming use and annulled the BSA’s determination. Neighbors appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Neighbors again appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership