You are here: / / PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT...

PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for a referendum concerning the sale by the town of land to be used for a recreational park should not have been invalidated, and a vote on the referendum should be held:

… [T]he petition sheets set forth the purpose for which each elector signed, namely, to protest the resolution authorizing the sale of Town-owned property … and to request a referendum on its adoption. Indeed, by the inclusion of language simply tracking the requirements of Town Law § 91, the petition sheets satisfied the “statement of purpose” requirement set forth in Matter of McComb (18 AD2d at 663). To require more detail would be to read a new requirement into Town Law § 91 that the legislature did not include. To the extent that Matter of Mathewson v Town of Kent (41 Misc 3d 572, 574 [Sup Ct, Putnam County]) required an “affirmative articulation of the objections upon which the petition is founded,” it should not be followed. Matter of Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings, Inc. v 409 Signatories to the challenged Referendum Petition, 2018 NY Slip Op 02627, Second Dept 4-18-18

​MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN LAW, REFERENDUM, PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT))/TOWN LAW (REFERENDUM, PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT))/REFERENDUM (TOWN LAW, PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM CONCERNING THE SALE OF TOWN LAND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RECREATIONAL PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, THE PETITION MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN LAW 91 (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT HOTEL PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; HOWEVER THE HOTEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED 100% OF THE FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT; THE CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S STEPFATHER APOLOGIZED TO THE ROBBERY VICTIM FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE ENCOURAGED INFERENCE OF GUILT BASED ON FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
A DIAGNOSIS OF PARAPHILIA NOS (NONCONSENT) IS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES, EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE DISORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
A STORM DRAIN ALLEGEDLY CAUSED FLOODING ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENT DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE VILLAGE ACCRUED WHEN THE STORM DRAIN WAS INSTALLED, NOT WHEN THE FLOODING OCCURRED, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK AFTER HE WAS HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT HUSBAND FROM DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF WIFE TO THIRD PARTIES WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT OF SPEECH; ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROHIBIT DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF TO PLAINTIFF’S PATIENTS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT... PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN A STOPPED CAR HIT FROM BEHIND, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY...