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 MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE DESIGN DEFECT, FAILURE TO WARN AND IMPLIED WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING A “HOVERBOARD” (SECOND DEPT).
Appeal Rendered Academic by Failure to Move for a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal
Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Out-of-Possession Landlord—Injury Caused by Defect in Floor
LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THE ANSWER, THE DEFENSES WERE NOT WAIVED AND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT WAIVED WAS NOT ENACTED AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DECIDED, THE APPELLATE COURT CAN APPLY THE LAW AS IT EXISTS AT THE TIME OF THE APPELLATE DECISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT’S MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

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...