You are here: / / BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT...
,

BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff property owners who sought to contest the approval of the construction of condominiums near their properties. Because the approval of the project was never filed within the meaning of the Village Code, the 30-day period for appeal never began to run and plaintiffs’ action should not have been dismissed as untimely. In addition, because no duly noticed public hearing (as required by the Village Code) was held, the site plan approval was jurisdictionally defective:

… the ZBA [zoning board of appeals] determined that the 30-day period set forth in Village Code § 300-23(A)(2) began to run in November 2012, when the Building Inspector forwarded [the] application to the Planning Board, an act that was not disclosed to the public. It is undisputed that any determination of the Building Inspector in November 2012 that [the] proposed use was zoning-compliant was not “filed” anywhere at that time. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the ZBA’s determination in this respect was contrary to the plain language of Village Code § 300-23(A)(2). Since this is a purely legal conclusion based on arguments raised in the motions to dismiss, and based on undisputed facts, contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the conversion of their motions into motions for summary judgment was proper, and we agree with the court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on this issue prior to the filing of an answer … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting summary judgment to the petitioners on the second cause of action to the extent of declaring that the determination of the BOT dated December 18, 2013, granting site plan approval, was jurisdictionally defective and thus void in that no duly noticed public hearing was held thereon in accordance with Village Code § 300-28(G). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, Village Code § 300-28(G)(1) plainly requires that public hearings be held on site plan applications. That section further provides that the applicant shall be required to send notices of the hearing to owners of properties within 200 feet of the subject property by certified mailing. Since no notice of a public hearing was given, the BOT acted without jurisdiction in granting site plan approval … . Matter of Corrales v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Dobbs Ferry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05676, Second Dept 8-8-18

ZONING (BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE DEATH OF THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC STAY BECAUSE THE MORTGAGOR/PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE AND THE ACTION COULD CONTINUE AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTEES WITHOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF A REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING SLED, PUSHED BY SEVERAL PLAYERS, VEERED OFF TO THE SIDE AND RAN OVER PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIES TO SPECTATORS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK IN THE ON-COMING LANE WHILE ATTEMPTING A LEFT TURN IN AN INTERSECTION, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.
WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE TWO POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGES RELATED TO DISTINCT EVENTS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND GRANTED...