How and when to challenge multiple municipal actions regarding a single project often perplexes Article 78 litigants. Varying statutes of limitations may apply to actions taken at various stages for one project, and the judicial concepts of finality and ripeness affect the viability of a challenge. For example, a litigant must challenge a lead agency’s
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Shinnecock Nation’s Project along Sunrise Highway
Last week, the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the completion, maintenance and operation of two sixty-foot tall electronic billboard-monuments (“Project”) on opposite sides of State Route 27 a.k.a. Sunrise Highway, which Project is owned by the Shinnecock Indian Nation (“Nation”).
A. The Project and
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
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
Town Takes Trailer: Enforcing Zoning Ordinance against Unresponsive Violators
In Town of Brookhaven v Golemi, 2019 NY Slip Op 51477(U) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2019], the Town of Brookhaven (“Brookhaven”) successfully sought and obtained injunctive relief to remove a structure that violated Brookhaven’s Town Code (“Code”). This case reminds landowners to be responsive to local governments in their enforcement of zoning ordinance.
Village’s Vitiation of Riparian Rights Survives Initial Challenge
In Akeson v Inc. Vil. of Asharoken, 2019 NY Slip Op 32756(U), Index No. 57/2018 (Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2019), the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Incorporated Village of Asharoken’s (“Asharoken”) decisions to deny permits for the construction of seasonal and removable docks at two residential properties along Northport
Parking Ticket Fix Earns Counsel Two Years’ Suspension
In Matter of Weissmann, 2019 NY Slip Op 06170 (2d Dep’t 2019), the Special Prosecutor for the Village of Spring Valley Justice Court received a two-year suspension from the practice of law for helping select defendants favorably dispose of parking tickets at the direction of a Village Trustee. This cautionary case serves as
Short-Term Rental Law Stumbles, But Survives Federal Court Challenge
Earlier this month, a challenge to the Town of Shelter Island (“Shelter Island”) short term rental law ordinance enacted in April 2017, amended May 2019 (“STRL”), came to an end – for now. Several years ago, the Shelter Island Town Board enacted its STRL to (i) impose licensing and advertising requirements for certain vacation
The Appellate Division, Third Department, Holds a Brewpub May Be an Accessory Use to a Golf Course
While the Town of Halfmoon (“Town”) in Saratoga County, New York, may be far from any given reader, the issues in Micklas v. Town of Halfmoon Planning Board, 170 A.D.3d 1483 (3d Dep’t 2019), are close to the heart: whether a golf course may brew beer on-site for its patrons, and
Time-Frames for Prosecuting an Article 78 Challenge May Be Shorter Than You Think
In Rimler v. City of New York, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 03599 (2d Dept, May 8, 2019), which involved a challenge to the issuance of a negative declaration, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition and denying the petitioners’