You are here: / / VILLAGE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT...
, ,

VILLAGE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION NOT SUBJECT TO AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village board properly declined to consider an application to rezone the subject property, which was an exercise of a legislative function:

“[T]he amendment of a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative function” … . The Village Board is vested with discretion to amend its zoning ordinance, and it is not required to consider and vote upon every application for a zoning change (see Village Law § 7-708 …). Thus, in the present case, the Village Board’s determinations not to consider the plaintiffs/petitioners’ applications were a legislative function not subject to review under CPLR article 78 … . Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 02062, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

You might also like
CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION NOT PRECLUDED BY DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Move to Sever Unrelated Counts of Indictment Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN THIS SUPPORT PROCEEDING, VACATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER AND THE RESULTING COMMITMENT ORDER REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL LOAN DOCUMENT AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED...