You are here: / / CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT...
, , , , ,

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AMOUNTED TO AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE, NOT AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION; SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES TO THE TOWN ENCROACHED UPON THE TOWN’S ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the correspondence between the property owner (PCP) and the town concerning proposed construction created an agreement to agree, not an enforceable settlement agreement allowing construction; and (2), Supreme Court’s directing what the town could and could not consider with respect to the construction project encroached upon the town’s administrative authority:

… [T]he letters that the court found to have memorialized the settlement agreement did not contain all the material terms of the settlement and constituted no more than an agreement to agree … . [The town] stated therein only that it was “now in a position to agree to a settlement of the mass and scale issues,” but that first it would “need to receive, review and approve all of the items that it normally reviews in connection with any application it receives.” Any agreement was further conditioned on [the town’s] receipt of additional documentation from PCP, including “an accurate, to-scale site plan” and further roof specifications … .

We further conclude that, in the absence of an enforceable settlement agreement, the court’s hearing on the issues of mass and scale, subsequent decision rendering findings of fact related to PCP’s new application for a certificate of approval, and remittal to [the town] for consideration of that application with specific directives regarding what [the town] could and could not consider were impermissible intrusions into respondents’ administrative domain … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2020 NY Slip Op 01812, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
A SHOOTER WEARING BODY ARMOR OPENED FIRE AT A BUFFALO GROCERY STORE KILLING TEN AND INJURING MANY OTHERS; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE BODY ARMOR ALLOWED THE SHOOTER TO KILL THE SECURITY GUARD WHICH LEFT THE SHOPPERS UNPROTECTED; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BODY ARMOR AND TWO INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Malicious Prosecution Action Against County, Medical Examiner and District Attorney Survived Motion to Dismiss/Prosecutorial and Governmental Immunity Doctrines Explained
THE CRIME TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED DID NOT HAVE A FORCIBLE COMPULSION ELEMENT SO 10 POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED ON THAT GROUND; HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE AN UPWARD DEPARTURE MIGHT BE WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ROBBERY WAS THE FELONY UPON WHICH THE FELONY ASSAULT WAS PREDICATED; THEREFORE THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT FIRST AND ROBBERY FIRST MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH DEPT).
IN A TRIAL SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 5102 THE TERM “SERIOUS INJURY” NOT “INJURY” SHOULD BE USED ON THE VERDICT SHEET (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSAULT VICTIM 12 TO 15 MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
AN OFFICER MAY FOLLOW A SUSPECT IN A POLICE VEHICLE; THE OFFICER DID NOT GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASE THE DEFENDANT UNTIL HE SAW THE DEFENDANT DISCARD A WEAPON; THE SEIZURE OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).
RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE.

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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE... IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW A POLICE OFFICER TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN SECURITY...