Last month, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held the Mined Land Reclamation Law (“Mining Law”), as amended, does not preempt certain local zoning laws which prohibit mining. Specifically, in Town of Southampton v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2021 NY Slip Op 03351 [3d Dept 2021], the Appellate Division held the
Second Department Affirms Limits on Site Plan Determinations
This month, in Gershow Recycling of Riverhead v Town of Riverhead, 2021 NY Slip Op 02156 [2d Dept 2021], the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the motion court’s decision granting an Article 78 petition to annul the denial of a site plan amendment application. The motion court and the appeals court held the
Shinnecock Nation’s Second Sign Sees Renewed State Resistance
Last May, in Commissioner of the State of New York Department of Transportation, et al. v Polite, Index No. 610010/2019, the Suffolk County Supreme Court denied the State’s 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
Amityville Prepares For Production: Avoiding the Horror with Proposed Filming Law
With prospects of featuring its history and architecture on screen, the Village of Amityville (“Amityville“) has been considering adopting a local law to regulate filming and photography for movies, television and commercials. The purpose of the proposed law is to minimize the adverse impact of these activities for village businesses and residents, while
Farmingdale To Bring Upper Levels to the Ground Floor: Proposed Amendments to Downtown Zoning
Tonight, the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale (“Farmingdale“) will consider amending its zoning code to expand permitted uses in its Downtown Mixed-Use Zoning District (“Downtown“). The proposed amendments will allow, among other things, legal and medical offices on the ground level of buildings. The changes will allow more space for non-retail
Flag on the Play for Illegal Procedure: Necessary Parties and the Pitfalls of Nonjoinder
Failure to name a necessary party when challenging a land use determination may result in dismissal, and leave a challenger without further recourse. CPLR 1003 provides that the nonjoinder of a party who should be joined under CPLR 1001 (i.e. a person ought to be a party if he or she might be inequitably be
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
“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
How and When to Challenge SEQRA Determinations: Addressing Ripeness and Finality in Article 78 Cases
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