You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION...
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:

“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . “An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury” … . “However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance” … . “Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .

Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING PROCEDURE AND, ACCORDING TO HIS EXPERT, DID SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICES; PLAINTIFF WAS DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER A YEAR LATER; THE RADIOLOGIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON MOTHER’S MENTAL CONDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT, THE NEGLECT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FACT THAT MOTHER HAD NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED AS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Unjust Enrichment Does Not Require a Wrongful Act by the One Enriched
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND A FAKE CUSTODY PETITION “FILED” BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEY; PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE PURPORTED STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THE PURPORTED NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE WERE INVALID; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN REVOKED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COURT NEVER ENTERED AN ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; THEREFORE THE TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION NEVER STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, INTER ALIA, ALLEGED THE FLORIDA DEFENDANT IN THIS FRAUD-BASED ACTION DEPOSITED RELEVANT FUNDS IN A NEW YORK LAW FIRM ESCROW ACCOUNT AND CONVERTED THOSE FUNDS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (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

SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES...