You are here: / / RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO...
, ,

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A ZONING VIOLATION; BECAUSE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS ZONING-VIOLATION PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff property owners who did not live in close proximity to the proposed fence around school property did not have standing to assert a zoning violation; and (2) the NYS Department of Education (SED) and the Commissioner of Education, which authorized construction of the fence, are necessary parties. The plaintiffs alleged the local school district violated local zoning laws by not seeking approval from the village before starting construction of the fence:

A party seeking standing to challenge an administrative action must establish that the injury it sustained was “different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . A party residing “in the immediate vicinity” of the subject property suffers harm greater than the community at large when the subject property violates a zoning law because “loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood” … . …

… “[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” ( … CPLR 1001[a]). SED and the Commissioner are necessary parties because the Supreme Court’s determination would necessarily determine their rights to set school safety standards and approve plans for school construction … . Matter of Cuomo v East Williston Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Only residents who live in close proximity to property alleged to violate zoning laws have standing to assert a zoning violation.

Practice Point: When necessary parties have not been included in a lawsuit, the court should try to make them parties.

 

You might also like
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
INJURED POLICE OFFICER CAN RECEIVE BOTH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER REQUIRING MOTHER TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A YEAR AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK ABUTTED AN UNDEVELOPED LOT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SMALL-PROPERTY EXEMPTION FROM TORT LIABILITY.
CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT... THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE...