You are here: / / PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN...
,

PLANNING BOARD HAD THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION, DESPITE THE FACT THE APPROVAL HAD BEEN RESCINDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the village planning board had the authority to reaffirm a subdivision and site plan approval based upon new evidence, despite the fact the plan had previously been rescinded:

Petitioners argue that the Village Planning Board lacked the authority to reaffirm the 2010 subdivision and site plan approval. We disagree. “Despite the lack of statutory authority, a planning board may reconsider a determination if there has been a material change of circumstances since its initial approval of the plat or new evidence is presented” (Matter of 1066 Land Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Austerlitz, 218 AD2d 887, 887 [1995] [citations omitted]). Given that the record discloses that the Village Planning Board was presented with new information in the amended subdivision and site plan, we find that it was authorized to reaffirm the approval notwithstanding the fact that it had been previously rescinded. Matter of Town of Mamakating v Village of Bloomingburg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05732, Third Dept 7-18-19

 

You might also like
Causes of Action Stated Against County for Allowing Public Traffic During Paving Operation and Violation of Regulation Requiring Truck-Brake Maintenance
HERE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THE PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE NON-PRETEXTUAL (THIRD DEPT).
Courts Should Not Defer to Zoning Board of Appeals’ Determination of a Purely Legal Question (the Meaning of a Town Code Provision)
Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.
HERE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S INDICTMENT AND PLEA TRANSCRIPT IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL ACTION; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THOSE RECORDS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SEALING ORDER ISSUED BY COUNTY COURT; IF THE RECORDS WERE COURT RECORDS AND PROCURED FROM THE COURT, THE SEALING ORDER WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THEM; IF THE RECORDS WERE PROCURED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES, THE SEALING ORDER APPLIES; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING.

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

UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER (GEICO) WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO... STATEMENTS POSTED ON AN ELECTION-RELATED FACEBOOK PAGE ABOUT THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE...