Last year, the New York County Supreme Court heard an Article 78 challenge by Preserve Our Brooklyn Neighborhoods (“POBN”), a civic organization dedicated to maintaining the unique character and historical significance of the Fort Greene area of Brooklyn, New York. This lawsuit, which I discussed in a previous post, turned on whether a resolution passed by the New
Continue Reading First Department Affirms Dismissal of Constitutional Challenge to Zoning Resolution
Utilizing CPLR 3102(c) Pre-Action Discovery in Article 78 Proceedings – Can’t Go Fishin’
Last February, in Dreyer v Stachecki, 2020 NY Slip Op 50134(U), the Suffolk County Supreme Court denied an unopposed motion for pre-action discovery. CPLR Section 3102(c) authorizes disclosure – prior to commencement – to aid in bringing an action or proceeding. In this case, the petitioner-movant sought the production of documents and depositions in anticipation of his challenges to
Continue Reading Utilizing CPLR 3102(c) Pre-Action Discovery in Article 78 Proceedings – Can’t Go Fishin’
Second Department Affirms Article 78 Reversal of Village Zoning Board Determination
Petitioner, Claude Simon (“Petitioner”), owns approximately 2.25 acres of property in the Village of Upper Nyack (the “Village”), which he sought to subdivide into two separate lots. The first lot would contain the existing dwelling and other existing improvements. The vacant second lot would be improved with a single-family dwelling. However, the Village advised Petitioner that he would need to
Continue Reading Second Department Affirms Article 78 Reversal of Village Zoning Board Determination
“General” Code Provision Saves Dollar Store Endeavor: Superfluous Interpretations Are Not Required
In Cady v Town of Germantown Planning Bd., 2020 NY Slip Op 03440 [3d Dept 2020], the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Columbia County Supreme Court’s judgment annulling site plan approval, and dismissed the Article 78 petition. Among other things, the Court’s decision addressed whether the Planning Board exceeded its authority and improperly interpreted the zoning code
Continue Reading “General” Code Provision Saves Dollar Store Endeavor: Superfluous Interpretations Are Not Required
Landowner’s Intent to Mine Property Sufficient to Establish Nonconforming Use
In a recent decision, Matter of Red Wing Properties, Inc. v. Town of Rhinebeck, et al., the Second Department held that a landowner’s intent to continue using its property for mining operations established a valid pre-existing nonconforming use.
Red Wing Properties, Inc. (“Petitioner”) owns roughly 241 acres of property located with the Town of Rhinebeck (the “Town”). For several
Continue Reading Landowner’s Intent to Mine Property Sufficient to Establish Nonconforming Use
Municipal Development Agreement: Found To Be Illegal Contract Zoning
In the Matter of Giora Neeman v Town of Warwick, __AD3d__, 2020 NY Slip Op 03112, the Second Department recently declared that a development agreement entered into between the respondent/defendant Black Bear Family Campgrounds, Inc. (“BBFC”) and respondent/defendant, Town of Warwick, (“Town”) as part of a settlement of a separate civil proceeding, constituted illegal contract zoning, and was therefore,
Continue Reading Municipal Development Agreement: Found To Be Illegal Contract Zoning
Letters Exchanged Between Developer and Architectural Review Board Insufficient to Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
In Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, et al., the Fourth Department held that settlement correspondence between a development firm, Pittsford Canalside Properties, LLC (“PCP” or “Petitioner”), and the Village of Pittsford Architectural Preservation and Review Board (the “ARB”), was not an enforceable settlement agreement.
PCP owned property located within the
Continue Reading Letters Exchanged Between Developer and Architectural Review Board Insufficient to Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
Zoning Boards May Consider the Proposed Use and Purpose When Deciding Area Variance Applications, But Cannot Forget the Five-Factors
When deciding an area variance application, a zoning board may consider the proposed use of the property and the purpose in seeking the variance. However, the zoning board cannot fail to account for the five-factor test mandated by statute (see General City Law § 81-b[4][b][i]-[v]; Town Law § 267-b[3][b]; Village Law § 7-712-b[3][b]) and typically included within the respective
Continue Reading Zoning Boards May Consider the Proposed Use and Purpose When Deciding Area Variance Applications, But Cannot Forget the Five-Factors
How Executive Order 202.8’s 30-Day “Tolling” Affects Statutes of Limitations in the Article 78 Context
Recent executive and administrative orders carrying-out COVID-19 mitigation and public safety measures will impact litigation within the Article 78 context, specifically the deadlines for commencing a proceeding to challenge municipal determinations. This impact is significant given the short statutes of limitations periods typical to land use litigation. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.8 (“Executive Order“) “temporarily suspends or
Continue Reading How Executive Order 202.8’s 30-Day “Tolling” Affects Statutes of Limitations in the Article 78 Context
Second Department Reverses Dismissal of Article 78 Proceeding on Ripeness Grounds
A recent Second Department decision, Matter of Village of Kiryas Joel v County of Orange, et al., addresses the intriguing justiciability doctrine of ripeness, as applied to judicial review of municipal administrative action.
In 2007, Orange County (the “County”) acquired property known as Camp LaGuardia from the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Originally, the County’s plan was to
Continue Reading Second Department Reverses Dismissal of Article 78 Proceeding on Ripeness Grounds