CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL SUSSMAN, AS TRUSTEE, D/B/A CADILLAC HOTEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Miami Beach's appeal of a zoning determination was affirmed because substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual finding that a renovated structure was a 'hotel' rather than an 'apartment building' under the city's zoning ordinance.
A trial court's factual determination that a structure with characteristics of both a hotel and apartment house qualifies as a hotel under a zoning ordinance will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.
[1] Whether a structure qualifies as a hotel or apartment building under a zoning ordinance is a question of fact for the trial court, and the appellate court will not distur…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Cadillac Hotel, built in 1940, underwent extensive renovation and alterations in 1976-1977 by new owners, resulting in a structure possessing char…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Zoning Ordinance Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The City of Miami Beach seeks review of a final judgment entered against it after a non-jury trial. The court below held that a structure owned by the appellee was presently a “hotel” rather than an “apartment building”, within the meaning of the city’s zoning ordinance, so as to permit the continuation of “hotel” accessory uses as authorized by the code.
The record shows that in 1976-1977, new owners of the Cadillac Hotel, which had been built in 1940, effected an extensive renovation and alterations to the building and its rooms. As a result, the structure now possesses characteristics both of a “hotel” and of an “apartment house” as those terms are defined and described in the ordinance. Under these circumstances, the question of which definition was applicable to the building in question was one of fact properly to be determined by the trial judge. See Langbein v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 135 Conn. 575, 67 A. 2d 5, 7 (1949); see also, Moyer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 233 A. 2d 311, 318 (Me.1967); cf. City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel’s Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1977); City of Miami Beach v. Royal Castle System, Inc., 126 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
Since we find substantial evidence in the record to support the lower court’s resolution of that issue, we of course may not disturb it on appeal. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); see City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 269 So. 2d 699, 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 276 So. 2d 166 (Fla.1973); Annots., 64 A.L.R.2d 1167 (1959); 28 A.L.R.3d 1240 (1969).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Coral Gables v. Wepman, 418 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…in the record. Therefore the order under review is affirmed. See Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1976); Alapattah Community Association, Inc. of Florida v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Miami Beach v. Sussman, 376 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corporation, 371 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); City of Miami Beach v. Manilow, 241 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Affirmed. . This action challenging the constitutionality of a zoning ordinan…
-
Zalarick v. Monroe Cnty., 467 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…75th Street lot it occupies; and it serves only the business, and not the residence at the 74th Street address. Hence, we approve the conclusion below that an illegal use of the 75th Street parcel was established. See City of Miami Beach v. Sussman, 376 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We also agree with the trial court’s rejection of the claim that, by virtue of its issuance of the building permit and the appellant s consequent expenditures, Monroe County became “equitably estopped” from asserting its present…
-
N. Tr. Bank OF Fla., N.A. v. Rosefsky, 554 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…is wife is supported by ample competent evidence in the record. See Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Hence, it may not be disturbed on appeal. Strawgate v. Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112, 1113 (Fla.1976); City of Miami Beach v. Sussman, 376 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Placet, Inc. v. Ashton, 368 So. 2d 404, 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 343, 347 (Fla.1979). There was likewise no error in the denial of the appellant’s motion for new trial based on allegedly newly disc…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Strawgate v. Dorothea Chase Turner, 339 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1976)
- City OF Miami Beach v. MR. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Royal Castle Sys., Inc., 126 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 269 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- French v. State, 276 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1973)
- Arthree, Inc. v. Kaskel, 276 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1973)