You are here: / / Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting...
, ,

Standing to Seek Review of Site Plan Approval Based Upon Interest in Protecting the Ecological Health of a Body of Water Adjacent to Petitioner’s Property.

Petitioners had standing to seek review of a planning board’s site plan approval.  Petitioners, who lived one half mile from the site, alleged “direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large … .  Their allegations that the approved construction project will harm their regular use, enjoyment, and interest in protecting the ecological health of Stony Brook Harbor, which is adjacent to their property, are sufficient to confer standing …”.  Matter of Shepherd vs Maddaloni, 2011-09750, Index No. 7867/11, Second Dept. 2-27-13

 

You might also like
EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.
Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE NOTE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE NOT PROVEN; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.
PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof of Lack of Constructive Notice Insufficient. Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revo...