You are here: / / PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,...
,

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the approval of construction project by the zoning board. Although petitioners' property is in close proximity to the proposed project, the petitioners did not demonstrate any harm peculiar to them, as opposed to the community at large:

An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury. However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance … . Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the petitioner must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects … . Thus, “even where petitioner's premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular petitioner itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … . * * *

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioners failed to establish standing on the basis of alleged traffic impacts, impacts arising from issues of compliance, or community character impacts, as the petitioners failed to establish any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . Matter of CPD NY Energy Corp. v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 03877, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

ZONING (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/LAND-USE (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/STANDING (ZONING, PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)/LAND-USE (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH)

You might also like
THE BANK’S DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVOKE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT; THE REQUEST, AFTER DISCONTINUANCE, FOR A DECLARATION THE ACCELERATION HAD BEEN REVOKED WAS A REQUEST FOR AN IMPERMISSIBLE ADVISORY OPINION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE CUSTODY-RELATED PRINCIPALS UNDERLYING MICHAEL B, 80 NY2D 299, APPLY TO THIS SURROGATE’S COURT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WHERE BOTH PARENTS SEEK TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SON AS HE TURNS 18; NEW EVIDENCE RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR A GUARDIANSHIP DETERMINATION; A NEW HEARING WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Allege Negligent Provision of Medical Care in Notice of Claim Required Dismissal of Negligence Cause of Action; Failure to Allege Facts Demonstrating a Custom or Practice of Providing Inadequate Medical Care Required Dismissal of 1983 Causes of Action 

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

WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY... COURT OF CLAIMS LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE MONEY DAMAGES ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL...